The Fifth Commandment
A biography ofShapurji Saklatvala
’ and memoir by his daughter
Sehri Saklatvala
The Fifth Commandment: A Biography ofShapurji Saklatvala and Memoir by his
Daughter
By Sehri Saklatvala
First digital edition, July 2012.
Originally published by Miranda Press, July 1991, with ISBNs 0951827405 &
978-0951827406.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-
NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
2
Table of Contents
Editor's Note 5
Author's Preface 6
Chapter 1 - The Sun Rises in the East 8
Chapter 2 - The Plague Years 20
Chapter 3 - The Quest for Iron 31
Chapter 4 - The Sun Veers to the West 41
Chapter 5 - The Quest for a Political Solution 54
Chapter 6 - The Mind is its Own Place 66
Chapter 7 - Freedom for Me and Mine, Bondage for Thee and Thine 88
Appendix A to Chapter 7: Statement of the Workers’ Welfare League of India, 1919 112
Appendix B to Chapter 7: ‘The Call of the Third International’ 123
Appendix C to Chapter 7: Terms of Comintern Membership 129
Chapter 8 - A Communist in Parliament 135
Appendix A to Chapter 8: Report to the Labour Party Conference, 1922 147
Appendix B to Chapter 8: ‘Explanatory Notes on the Third International’ 151
Appendix C to Chapter 8: Saklatvala’s Election Addresses of 1922 159
Chapter 9 - A New Voice for the People 167
Chapter 10 - Speaking Against Imperialism 201
Chapter 11 - The Deportations to Ireland 212
Chapter 12 - The MP for Battersea and India 240
Chapter 13 - A Narrow Defeat 261
Chapter 14 - Re-election and the Red Scare 274
Chapter 15 - Banned from the USA 296
Chapter 16 - A Subversive in Parliament 314
Chapter 17 - The General Strike and a Term of Imprisonment 325
Chapter 18 - A Return to India 359
Chapter 19 - Defending the Rights of Workers 386
Appendix to Chapter 19: Amendments to the Trade Disputes Bill 392
Chapter 20 - A Cloak on the Tyranny 396
Chapter 21 - Saklatvala on Socialism 422
Appendix to Chapter 21: Amendment to ‘Perils of Socialism’ 437
Chapter 22 - A Revolutionary in Parliament 439
Chapter 23 - Some Family Life 446
Chapter 24 - A Conspiracy Against Colonialism 452
Appendix to Chapter 24: Memorial of the Meerut Prisoners 462
Chapter 25 - Detained in Ostend 466
Chapter 26 - The Pact of Deception 473
Chapter 27 - A Disheartening Defeat 482
Chapter 28 - More Family Life 488
Chapter 29 - Final Years 502
Chapter 30 - Last Days 509
Chapter 31 - Tributes to Saklatvala 518
Further reading 526
3
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
A BIOGRAPHY OF SHAPURJI SAKLATVALA AND MEMOIR BY HIS
DAUGHTER
SEHRI SAKLATVALA
Photo: Saklatvala with the author as a child
4
Editor's Note
This edition of The Fifth Commandment has been newly revised, edited,
annotated and illustrated for digital publication. Electronic publication affords
the opportunity of a wider readership and a longer life for the book than the
original printed edition could ever achieve.
Contemporary newspaper clippings have been interspersed through the text,
mostly from The Times— although as the voice and epitome of the British
establishment, that organ could never have been expected to sympathise with
Saklatvala’s views. Its archives were, however, the only ones available for free
to the present editor, who believes all the material included to be out of
copyright.
In line with the author’s intentions, this digital edition is made freely available
to historians, educators, scholars and activists under the Creative Commons
3.0 Licence; you can distribute, copy and reproduce any unaltered part of the
text, provided that due acknowledgement of the source is given and that no
profit ensues.
The editor
June 2012
Photo: Portrait of Saklatvala as part of the mural Battersea View by
Brian Barnes and Neil Torbett, 1998
5
Author's Preface
Before I start this narrative, I had better explain the title of the book; I have
myself often been irritated when an author chooses a periphrastic title and
fails to tell the reader the significance of it until almost the last page, by which
time I am usually beyond caring. The fifth commandment appears in the Bible,
in Exodus, chapter 20, verse 12, wherein it is said: “Honour thy father and thy
mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God
giveth thee.” That is exactly what I am doing in writing this story: I write a
book; I carve a headstone.
The only memorial to my father is a plain and modest marble tablet at the foot
of his mother’s grave in the Parsi burial ground in Brookwood Cemetery in
Woking, under which his ashes lie. It reads:
Shapurji D. Saklatvala,
eldest son ofDorabji and Jerbai Saklatvala ,
mourned by his sorrowing wife Sehri and their five children.
Born Bombay 28th March 1874.
Died London 16th January 1936.
Member of Parliament 1922/23 and 1924/29.
Nothing but death could end his courage and determination in the cause of
humanity.
Nothing but such determination could conquer death.
His work lives on.
My mother has no memorial stone. Instead, with the help of the Derbyshire
County Council, I had planted a hundred and twenty trees on the hillside
beside the cottage where she was born in the village of Tansley. It seemed a
more creative way of commemorating her life, for she always loved nature, and
especially her Derbyshire ‘heimat.’ Although she left her village when she was
eighteen and lived to be eighty-eight, she never wholly lost her native accent,
nor the colourful and unique phrases of her corner of England.
6
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
While this is primarily an account of Father’s life, his story is inextricably
entwined with the life of Sally Marsh, who became Sehri Saklatvala when she
married him in the summer of 1907. They were a diverse but devoted couple,
and each one fully appreciated the qualities of the other; Shapurji always said
that he would not have been able to devote himself wholeheartedly to politics
had he not had a sensible wife to whom he could with confidence entrust the
well-being of the family. And, although Sehri survived him by more than forty-
one years, she spoke of him continually in her everyday affairs, quoting his
views if ever she wanted to make a point in an argument, and still following his
advice, given years before, when she had to cope with illness or any crisis or
dilemma.
It was probably her constant devotion and references to him that have kept
him very much in the forefront of my mind; for although I was only sixteen
when he died, I still use his views as my yardstick and quite consciously refer
to what I think would be his opinion when making important decisions.
Sehri Saklatvala
1990
Photo: The author on the occasion of her 90th birthday, June 2009
7
CHAPTER l
The Sun Rises in the East
Saklatvala’s family background and early life, 1874 -1895.
Life in Bombay with his uncle, Jamsetji Tata. Attendance at
St Xavier’s Jesuit College.
Shapur Dorab Saklatvala was born on March 28th 1874 in Navsari, Gujerat,
India. Shapurji’s family situation was a complicated one, which had a
profound influence on his subsequent philosophies and conduct.
Shapurji’s great-uncle, Nusserwanji Tata, was not born into opulence, but he
was a creative man of vision and determination, and it was he who founded
the great business house of Tata, one of the first multiple companies to emerge
on the Indian commercial scene. He had fulfilled a childhood dream and
planned and laid the foundations of a lavishly splendid dwelling, Esplanade
House, completed after his death by his only son Jamsetji, who had worked
closely with his father, and whose contribution had helped to insure the
prosperity and growth of the family firm.
[Editor’s note: the suffix ‘-ji’ appended to Indian names indicates affection and
respect].
8
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Photo: The Tata family around 1900
L-R: Dorabji, Heerabai, Dhunbai, Jamsetji, Ratanji, Navajbai
Nusserwanji had four daughters: Ratanbai, Maneckbai, Virbai and Jerbai. It
was this youngest daughter, who was affianced in childhood to Dorabji
Saklatvala, the son of one of Nusserwanji’s business partners, Shapurji
Saklatvala the elder. Dorabji and Jerbai were my father’s parents. Daddy was
their second child and the eldest of four sons, and he therefore enjoyed the
confidence of his father, more than his three younger brothers. They lived
modestly in the Fort area of Bombay (now Mumbai).
The Saklatvala family moved to Esplanade House and all its grandeur when
Shapurji was about fourteen; Jamsetji Tata was living there with his wife
Heerabai and two sons, Dorabji, fifteen years older than my father, and
Ratanji, some three years older than Shapur. Jamsetji made a home for all his
nephews, saying that they were all grandsons of his father, Nusserwanji.
9
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Photo: Esplanade House, Bombay
Esplanade House was large enough to accommodate this extended family; it
was built round a courtyard in the classical style, and furnished in the
European manner, for Jamsetji was a great traveller. He was also an avid
reader and had a well-stocked and much-used library, which doubtless
enriched my father’s childhood.
Jamsetji (or J.N.) Tata was one of the leading lights of the Parsi community.
This, of course, was when India was part of the British Empire, the ‘jewel in
the crown,’ and the Indians were a subject people with virtually no voice in
their own affairs or government. But, on the whole, the Parsis were looked
upon with favour by the British rulers — they were competent entrepreneurs
and traders, cultured and educated very much in the Western mould, and not
averse to co-operating with the British Raj more readily than most of the
Hindu and Muslim populations.
The Parsis had come to India as refugees in about 936, when the Muslim
domination of Persia (now Iran) made it very dangerous for the Zoroastrians
to practice their religion there. They had sought and obtained permission to
settle on the west coast of India in the area of Bombay. There they have lived
harmoniously with their hosts ever since, maintaining their Zoroastrian faith.
Like the Jews in Europe, they have perpetuated their own religion and
traditions and, though comparatively few in number, have kept themselves
intact as an integral fraternity. They gained the reputation of being
industrious, intelligent, courageous— and usually wealthy. They were also
lavishly charitable; indeed, they are so still.
I have always described us as being zoologically Persian, but geographically
and patriotically Indian; but since I have inherited from my father his belief in
the universality of man and his dislike of anything that divides us into
competing groups either of religion or of race, I offer the reader these tit-bits
of information light-heartedly. Inasmuch as we all inherit and are shaped by
10
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
our history, a slight knowledge of our forbears might help the reader to
understand and know my father better.
Shapurji wrote to a friend in the mid-i920s, describing his and his father’s
view of the family relationships. Whether it is a true picture of the situation as
it really was, or not, it reveals his attitude and feelings about his father vis-a-
vis the Tatas. All these years after the events, I am not in a position
dispassionately to judge the rights and wrongs of the case; for the purpose of
this book, they are not important. It is Shapurji’s deeply held convictions and
beliefs that are important in trying to understand his later political
development. Unfortunately the first page of the letter is missing, and I am
therefore unable to know the precise date or the name of the recipient, but it
must have been written about 1926, because there was a court case in 1927 and
this document appears to have been written a short time before that.
“...After years of injustice and suffering, my father has gone but, through
him, the duty to our past ancestors still remains. I have to hand over
that burden to my children and towards them it is my equally great duty
to keep on trying with unceasing efforts to leave to them the heritage of
duty with their rights under the existent state of social structure, while it
lasts and dominates over chances of life. The Tata fortune began with
Nusserwanji Tata, but in all early initiative stages and efforts there was
an equally valuable partnership and substantial co-operation of
Shapurji Saklatvala [my father is referring here to his grandfather, after
whom he was named]. When the latter died, he left entirely to the
honour and discretion of the former, the fixing and distribution of the
fortune to the surviving heirs, of whom my father Dorabji was the sole
male heir and a special favourite almost undesirably spoilt.
“An ordinary trustee would have safeguarded the business rights of such
an heir and also created a careful trust for the future safety of such an
heir who was then a helpless minor of fourteen. This was not done but
the unusual course was adopted of handing over all jewellery, house
property and 90,000 rupees to the widow, without trust conditions and
with further assurance that the son Dorabji, being about to become the
Trustee’s own son-in-law, would have nothing to want.
“Well, he had to lead all his life in want and from this age he was
dispossessed of all wealth as well as business rights in the firm. Further,
11
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
all throughout we, his children, were brought up positively to disrespect
and even to despise him with the open doctrine that every Saklatvala
influence must be wrong and every Tata quality the crystal clear virtue.
The open misappropriation of the rights of our father was explained to
us as a thing to be made up to us and in us. Nothing of the sort has been
done. I grew old enough to discover the most cruel wrong done to my
father and through him to our future stock. The abominable trait in the
Tata lesson to us of despising our father I see now burning again in the
heart of Sir Dorabji in the relationship between myself and my children
[Sir Dorabji was J.N. Tata’s elder son and my father’s cousin]. Any
person of honourable social instincts would be horrified by the superior
Tatas in a sort of continuous action. I am taking it with a philosophic
tolerance as a fatalistic hatred that sometimes exists between closely
related families.
“The economic wrong stood for all these years under the excuse that
Dorabji as a ward was disobedient, vicious and uncontrollable. I
visualise now that he was a stripling lad of fourteen and the persons
who dispossessed him were Nusserwanji, over forty years of age, a
powerful, capable administrator, and Jamsetji Tata, over twenty-five
years of age and possessed of remarkable tact, talent and strong will.
“Somehow an idea has always prevailed, and (been) encouraged by the
latter-day Tatas, as if Jamsetji Tata had freely or even reasonably spent
sums upon our living, health and education. This is absolutely untrue,
and though our needs were great, with the ruination of our Father, we
had to do everything in life inadequately in proportion to very slender
means. When my brother Beram became of school age, the question of
paying fees for the fifth child became a huge problem. There was no
Tata help for him. Year after year to the very last he proved to be one of
India’s best brains [Beram became a successful metallurgist in
Pittsburgh, USA]. I had to go periodically to the Rector of our College,
explain our household poverty, and thus got Beram educated without
payment, ABC class to his final BSc Degree, on the charity of the kind-
hearted Jesuit Fathers. For his post-graduate work he obtained the
official Tata loan which he paid back with a per cent interest... no
supplementary assistance was ever extended to us. Our respect for
12
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Jamsetji was our voluntary contribution of a moral value.”
Bearing in mind that this letter was written with such a conviction that a great
wrong had been done to his father all those years before, one can imagine
what an impact such a situation must have had upon Saklatvala as a young
boy.
It is almost certain that both his father and his mother had related to him, as
the eldest son, the story of how his father had been deprived of his due
patrimony, (for, rightly or wrongly, this was their contention). Thus he was
made aware that his father felt aggrieved and wronged by the Tata family.
Shapurji, like the young Hamlet, was convinced that his uncle, Jamsetji Tata,
had virtually destroyed his father — not that he had actually taken his life but,
in Shapurji’s eyes, he had totally blighted it, and robbed him of success,
position and prestige. For the firm, initiated by Nusserwanji, grew and
blossomed under the visionary helmsmanship of Jamsetji, but Dorabji
Saklatvala had virtually no share in the prosperity, though his father had been
a founding partner in the business.
There is no official record of the fact, but Father had told my mother shortly
before their marriage that his parents had separated and were living apart. My
mother told me of this years later. Shapurji remained devoted to both his
parents and must have felt very keenly the lack of his father’s presence
throughout his boyhood. Again there is no record of how often Dorabji was
able to see his sons, but, since Shapurji remained fondly attached to him, it
would seem that they probably met quite often. Notes made from a
conversation soon after my father’s death, between Shapurji’s life-long friend,
Kaikoo Mehta, and my brother Beram, merely say that Granddad was hardly
ever there in the mills in Bombay.
Another early acquaintance, Mr Spitam Cama, in a letter to my brother, writes
that he first met Shapurji in 1890 and goes on to say, “...At this time, as far as I
remember, his father Dorab was away in Madras. It was Jamsetji Tata who
was the leading light in Esplanade House, and in the Saklatvala household.” It
would appear that the separation was not so much an emotional breach
between the mother and father, as a physical separation caused by the Tatas
sending Dorabji Saklatvala to work in their branches away from Bombay, and
at the same time, making a home for his wife and children in Bombay away
from him.
13
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
This means that Shapurji as a teenager was brought up in the household and
in the care of J.N. Tata, who had been described to him by his absent father as
the son of the man who had wronged his father. Had Shapurji been able to
dislike Jamsetji, it might perhaps have been easier for him to cope with
emotionally. But Jamsetji always had been especially fond of Shapurji and saw
in him from a very early age the possibilities of great potential; he gave him a
lot of attention and had great faith in his abilities, both as a boy and as a man.
Indeed, this deep affection between Jamsetji and the young Shapur led to
Jamsetji’s elder son, Dorab, being jealously resentful of this young cousin,
fifteen years his junior. As boys and as men, they were always antagonistic
towards each other; the breach was never healed. And while the young Shapur
must have enjoyed and been flattered by the paternal attitude of his uncle, he
probably felt rather guilty about it, remembering that it was that same uncle
and that uncle’s father who had caused such unhappiness to his parents.
Photo: St Xavier’s College, Mumbai
Also, it seems from Shapurji’s 1926(?) letter that Uncle Jamsetji always
belittled Dorabji Saklatvala and encouraged the sons to disparage him. I can
well imagine that a sensitive boy, such as my father undoubtedly was, must
have been torn apart by such conflicting loyalties. Also, he definitely saw his
father as an underdog and as a man not enjoying the prosperity of other
members of the family. This may well account for his early sympathies with
the really poor people who abounded in the city of Bombay. Indeed, Kaikoo
Mehta, Spitam Cama and his own brother, Sorab, all say that at a very early
age he was perplexed and concerned by the differences between the rich and
the poor, between men of wealth and influence and esteem, and those who
were despised and humiliated by their poverty. Much of this could have
14
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
stemmed from the differences in status he observed between his affluent and
influential uncle and his much poorer and somewhat despised father.
His references to the kindness and charity of the Jesuit Fathers in educating
free of charge his youngest brother Beram are also very significant. There has
been speculation as to whether or not Shapurji as a young man was baptised in
the Catholic faith. The question was raised legally in connection with
Shapurji’s rights to benefit under certain family trusts. My father contended,
in a document submitted to counsel for legal opinion, that he was not baptised
into the Roman Catholic Church, as alleged by the trustees and that he had at
no time entered into the Roman or any other church. It was true, he explained,
that
“...many years ago while in Bombay, he was a student of Religions, and
for this purpose he not only studied the Zoroastrian Religion but also
the Christian Religion and he had discourses with the Roman Catholic
Fathers of St Xavier’s College in Bombay where he was educated, and
having regard to this fact it was somehow published in a Roman
Catholic newspaper of Goa that he had adopted the Roman Catholic
Religion, but immediately upon this being brought to his notice, he,
within a very few days, published a notice in the same newspaper,
denying that he had embraced that religion.”
It appears that the newspaper report came to the notice of his cousin, Dorabji,
who had questioned Shapurji on the subject. Shapurji had assured him that
the report was false and had shown him his own publication in the newspaper
denying the unfounded allegation. I think it can safely and definitively be
assumed that any dip into the baptismal waters of Catholicism was an
intellectual and philosophical exercise, rather than a blinding flash of
revelation and unquestioning faith.
Like most Parsi families of that time, the Tatas and Saklatvalas were devout
Zoroastrians and great importance was laid on religious observance. At seven
years old, Shapurji had his Navjote ceremony, formally initiating him into the
Zoroastrian faith. (It is similar to the Jewish Bar-Mitzvah or the Christian
confirmation ceremony). This, of course, entailed his learning the prayers and
fundamental teachings of the religion, and he was invested with the sudra (a
fine cotton shift or shirt) and the kusti (a holy cord of lambswool worn like a
girdle round the waist). It is a solemn ceremony conducted by a priest and
15
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
witnessed by the child’s family and their friends. After the ceremony, gifts are
given to the child and a meal is served and there is a family party.
Later, when all four brothers were in their teens, they all attended a priestly
seminary and underwent the first of the two stages for becoming a priest. This
was quite usual among the families whose sons would be acceptable as
members of the priesthood; it did not mean that they intended to become
fully-fledged priests. The course was quite stringent and lasted for about a
year. At the end of the course, the boys were presented to the head priest in
the temple and conducted certain religious rites.
Having thus been imbued with the teachings of the Parsi religion, the young
Shapurji was taken from the vernacular school where he had started his
education, and was transferred to St Xaviers School, which was run by the
Jesuit Fathers. His natural inclinations and interest in things spiritual,
nurtured by the solemn teachings of Zoroastrianism, now turned themselves
to the religion of his new environment to which his change of school exposed
him.
His brother Sorab, writing to my brother Beram in 1937 said of him:
“As he grew up his tendency was to take things much more seriously
than boys of his own age. Personally I believe he was very greatly
influenced by the austere and simple life of the Jesuit Fathers of the
school, more so than any of us or any of the other non-christian boys.
He seldom took part in any games and did not seem to enjoy the
company of rowdy boys. He had a circle of friends of his own. Though in
fairly good health he was physically never very strong and that fact also
accounts for his not taking part in games or not freely mixing with his
school companions. All the same he was willing to be helpful to others
and was fond of joining debating societies or similar organisations.
“When he entered St Xavier’s College in 1893 his outlook on life became
still more serious and the influence of the Jesuit Fathers still more
pronounced. Philosophy and religion attracted him to such a degree that
he even neglected his other studies. He failed to take his Arts degree and
would have made a second attempt but illness intervened. This
prolonged illness made him weaker still physically but perhaps
spiritually stronger. This to a certain extent filled him with bitterness
which greatly changed his outlook on life. His religious propensities
16
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
deepened and he began taking an interest in and freely mixing with the
poorer classes. He seemed to be greatly perplexed by life’s vagaries and
became indecisive as to what profession in life to follow. He continued
his touch with the Jesuit Fathers and the old school and took an interest
in many Catholic institutions, at the same time maintaining contact with
Parsi institutions also.”
Shapurji’s closest friend through school and college, and all through his life
thereafter, was Kaikoo Mehta. Speaking of this period in Father’s life, Kaikoo
said:
“At college also we were together. During college, rumours and
complaints that he was too thick with Catholics arose— all matters
including religion. No doubt, he agreed. I can’t really say what influence.
We did not talk about these discussions. But evidently things seem to
have developed, which made people say he had been influenced. But he
still acted as an orthodox Parsi. But always, even in early days, he
always had a feeling for the poor and the underdog. He always used to
go about and see these people in their cottages, discuss matters and
sympathise with them and discussed the forces which kept them poor.”
Another old acquaintance of Shapurji (I would not go so far as to describe him
as a friend, though they remained in touch for most of their lives) was Spitam
Cama. He wrote, also to my brother in 1937:
“During 1892-1895 when Shapurji was between 18 and 21 years of age,
we were together in St Xavier’s College. He shone there in mathematics
and English literature and was altogether a brilliant student. During
these years we met almost every evening at Marker’s Ground in Bombay
[now Mumbai], where we played cricket or football or some other sport.
With us were the Mehta boys, Patel, Petit and, sometimes, Shapurji’s
brothers.
“It was during this period also that Shapurji made his first attempt at
any sort of public speaking. This was at the Gwalia Circle, a club of
which he was one of the founders. Among his fellow members were the
sons of Sir Pherozeshaw Mehta, J.R. Patel, subsequently a leading
lawyer, S. Cama, young Lalkaka who became a Collector in Karachi, and
J.B. Petit, who was destined to sit in the Indian Legislative Assembly.
This club was a well organised affair with reading rooms and a meeting
17
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
place in the Kamballa Hill district. There the young men used to meet
for debates and discussions. These were mostly of a purely literary
nature, and nothing political was ever brought up. Shapurji, with
considerable debating experience within the College itself and full of
enthusiasm for things literary was a leading figure at these semi-public
functions.
“1900-1901: Some time during this period Shapurji was quite seriously
ill... He seemed to be toying rather seriously with the idea of
Christianity. It should be emphasised that, although all the teachers at
St Xaviers were Jesuits, he had never, apparently, been influenced at
College towards their religion. [This does not tally with the views
expressed by Uncle Sorab, my father’s brother, above. I think Sorab’s
views were probably the more accurate and knowledgeable of the two.]
It was during and particularly after this period of illness that he first
showed such tendencies... Shapurji’s tendencies in the direction of
Catholicism greatly displeased his family, and led to frequent quarrels.
In these, Jamsetji himself never joined, but he was always very fond of
Shapurji, showing him an affection and trust greater than he showed to
his own boys, Dorab and Ratan.”
Certainly Father always had a certain regard for nuns and priests as teachers,
contending that, because they were not encumbered with the frictions and
worries of family life and other mundane matters, they were able to take a
greater interest in the development of children in their care. For this reason,
he sent my younger brother and myself to a convent school. But he stipulated
that we should not attend services in the chapel, nor were we to be given any
religious instruction.
He encouraged us always to read about and discuss religions, but he did not
want us to be influenced by any one teacher in a matter so wide and so
important. But he clearly thought that the simple and austere way of life of the
nuns would serve as a good guide and example for us to follow. He believed
that the core and the fundamental tenets of most religions led people to a good
life; but the ritual of religions he thought to be divisive and the cause of much
human dispute.
Clearly religion and philosophy were the predominant passions of his early life
and far outweighed all other interests. The quest only ended many years later
18
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
when he finally embraced communism as his creed.
19
CHAPTER 2
The Plague Years
Work in India during the bubonic plague and association
with bacteriologist Professor Waldemar Haffkine, 1896 -
1902.
To add to the emotional turmoil caused by the tribal turbulence between the
Tatas and the Saklatvalas, in 1896, there befell a plague on both their houses.
In the late summer of that year it was officially reported that bubonic plague
had assailed the city of Bombay. It was a scourge of disastrous proportions and
was to rage until 1902, with periods of varying intensity. It was against this
terrifying and depressing background of poverty, sickness and death that
Shapurji spent the early years of manhood.
It is astonishing to me that this plague was never mentioned at home, either
by my father or mother; nor was it ever spoken of by Kaikoo Mehta, who was
with us all continually and who was almost like a second father to the family.
Indeed, the first hint I had of it was when, after starting to delve into
Shapurji’s past, I began to read all his speeches in the House of Commons in
Hansard. There was a debate in the House on the 25th November 1927, when
it was proposed to send a Commission under the leadership of Sir John Simon
to India. In the course of this debate, the Under- Secretary of State for India
made a time-worn reference to the various religious factions in India,
emphasising their mutual prejudices and dissensions; and to illustrate that the
British in India were also showing that same prejudice, Shapurji, in the middle
of a long speech, told the following anecdote:
“...There are Hindus, Mohammedans, Sikhs and Parsees. We have heard
it often and often, but may I ask whether this Bill, whether the
imperialist rule in India, whether this Commission, intends to give one
religion to India? Is that your object? Is that what you are doing? If you
are merely ‘chewing the rag’ because there are many religions in India,
how does that entitle you to go as pirates into somebody’s land and
establish a rule? Will that make less religions? You will only make one
20
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
more. What is the meaning of talking about all these irrelevant things?
If you tell me that this Commission is going out to India and the
unmistakable result is going to be a unification of religions, I will be
ready to support it; but merely to talk about all the differences of
religion in India and then argue from that that Great Britain is entitled
to rule the whole of India, is an old-time deception that an enlightened
world can no longer swallow.
“If I may be permitted just to give something from my memory of a
personal character in this matter. In 1902 a plague was having a
devastating effect all over India. It was to be taken in hand not merely as
a grave problem, but as something to save human lives. There was a
Professor Haffkine in those days who was the first man who, with some
measure of success, gave out an anti-plague serum for inoculation. His
experiments were being conducted on a large scale. I was then
associated as secretary with an important committee of welfare workers.
The Governor of Bombay, who was then himself staying out of Bombay,
immediately sent a telegram to Professor Haffkine to go to him with
certain facts and figures because the matter was becoming of vital
importance.
“Professor Haffkine asked me to go and assist him. I gave up my work in
the office, and I went to the place where he was staying, and that was his
European club. People talk about untouchability! Although I had facts
and figures at my disposal which were the result of months of study, and
the Professor had only four or five hours at his disposal, I was actually
prevented from entering the white man’s club. Yet a representative of
that race today talks nonsense about untouchability among the Hindus.
Ultimately, when it could not be helped, the messenger of the club, after
telephoning to various government officials, took me to the back yard of
the club, led me through the kitchen and an underground passage to a
basement room, where the Professor was asked to see me because I was
not a white man. That happened 25 years ago.
“I got the Indian newspapers last Monday, and there is an example
quoted of a European officer of very high position, a Britisher and his
wife, who were travelling in a first class railway carriage. They had only
reserved their own seats and a Mohammedan of very high rank,
21
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
occupying a very high position in the government of India, had his seat
reserved in the same carriage. When he wanted to enter the carriage the
British officer would not allow him to sit in another seat in the same
carriage. He held the door of the railway carriage so that the railway
officials were unable to open the door, and that Mohammedan official
had to take his seat in another carriage. Yet a man of that British race
here today stands up and pours contempt upon the Hindus for insulting
Mohammedans. Talk about depressed classes and untouchable
classes...”
This reference to my father’s voluntary work in connection with the plague led
me to investigate further. In fact, in 1902 Bombay was witnessing the last
dying swish of the tail of the dragon. This bubonic plague had made its first
recognised appearance in Bombay on the 31st August 1896, by the registration
of the death of an inhabitant in Broach Street from this cause. Earlier in the
year, the monsoon had been unusually short and severe, and was followed by
serious floods which destroyed crops and made roads and railways
impassable. The torrential rainfall at one time burst the main water conduit
from the storage lakes and the city was without water for eighteen days.
I have not found any contemporary descriptions of the plight of the people at
that time, but perhaps an apt picture is that described in the apocryphal Book
of Judith:
“And the cisterns were emptied, and they had not water to drink their
fill for one day, for they gave them drink by measure. Therefore their
young children were out of heart, and their women and young men
fainted for thirst and fell down in the streets of the city, and by the
passages of the gates, and there was no longer any strength in them.”
It was when the population was thus already debilitated that the bubonic
plague struck. Food prices had soared and, as always, it was the poverty-
stricken who suffered the greatest deprivation and hardship. At first, the
authorities tried to play down the situation and, consequently, it was not until
the 23rd September 1896 that measures for the eradication of the plague were
adopted
22
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Photo: Waldemar Haffkine
Here I must interrupt the narrative of Shapurji to introduce a new character
into our story. He is Professor Waldemar Haffkine (born Vladimir Aaronovich
Havkin), a Russian Jew who went to Calcutta in 1893. He was an exponent of
the then comparatively new science of bacteriology. Since he was to have quite
an important influence on the young and impressionable Shapurji, we must
spend a little time to get to know him.
Haffkine was born in Odessa in i860, the son of a schoolmaster of modest
means. He managed with the frugal help of his elder brother to study in
Odessa University, and he received twenty kopeks a day from the University
for his food; so he knew what poverty was all about. He was an ardent student
and worked under Professor Mechnikov. He soon saw the injustices of the
Tsarist regime, which interfered constantly with the freedom of the university,
and he joined the revolutionary underground movement known as the
Narodnaya Volya Party, an illegal organisation set up in 1879. Some of its
members resorted to acts of terrorism in their fight against the tyranny of the
monarchy.
In 1882 Haffkine was expelled from the university for sending a letter to the
Rector in support of Professor Mechnikov, who was in disgrace with the
authorities. In 1881 he was arrested and served a jail sentence, and he was
under police surveillance in Odessa for eight years, and three times endured
the extremely harsh conditions of imprisonment under the Tsarist regime.
As a result of all this revolutionary activity, Professor Mechnikov escaped to
Paris, where he joined Louis Pasteur in his institute. Later, Haffkine followed
him and was found a minor job in the institute until, in 1890, he was
23
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
appointed as a research assistant there. Until then, the only vaccines that had
been found were against anthrax and rabies. Haffkine now concentrated on
finding a vaccine against cholera, which was rife in Asia and the Middle East
and was threatening Europe. Indeed, before he had been successful, there
were outbreaks of cholera in Paris and London and all over his beloved Russia.
He worked incessantly during all his waking hours and had no other interests
or distractions and, eventually, he found a safe vaccine. The first human trials
were carried out on himself and three of his fellow Russian exiles and,
mercifully for all of us, the inoculations proved both harmless and efficacious.
Meanwhile, Russia was ravaged by the disease, and Haffkine sought
permission from the authorities there to return home and help to arrest the
spread of the epidemic. But, because of his political associations, he was
refused admission to his homeland. It was believed that the disease had
spread all over Europe from Bengal, and it was for this reason that Haffkine
applied in London to go to Bengal to set up a laboratory there and to help to
arrest the further dissemination of cholera. There were many delays and it is
almost certain that the British government was informed by the Russian
Ambassador in London of Professor Haffkine’s politically stormy past; but
eventually, early in 1893, Professor Haffkine set sail for Bengal to take up the
post of bacteriologist with the government of India; and what a blessing his
presence in India was to prove to be, not only for India but for the whole of
mankind.
And incidentally to this great cause, circumstances were to bring this Russian
revolutionary, this brilliant and dedicated scientist and humanitarian, into
contact with Shapurji Saklatvala. Was it perhaps Haffkine who sowed the seed
of revolution in the fertile garden of Shapurji’s compassionate nature? It
seems to me to be highly likely, for Shapurji was to work with the professor for
six plague-ridden years.
When the plague struck the city of Bombay, it had a disastrous effect upon
trade and upon the municipal revenue. Official reports of the period show that
almost half the population fled in panic out of the city, and business of all
kinds was paralysed for a time. Hoping to slay the insatiable monster that was
killing the population by hundreds every week, the government sent Professor
Haffkine to Bombay to combat the terrible scourge. He arrived in the city on
the 7th October 1896, and the very next day set to work in a one-room
24
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
laboratory, with no scientific staff, to find a prophylactic vaccine. His quest
was for a system of inoculation of the healthy to prevent them being infected
by the disease, rather than to find a serum to cure the already stricken. After
three or four months of ceaseless and painstaking toil, he finally produced a
vaccine which, as with his cholera vaccine, he tried upon himself as the first
human experiment. During this time he was joined by a few doctors and his
staff was enlarged.
He had many bitter critics, not least among the medical profession, but it
seems that Jamsetji Tata was one of his enthusiastic supporters. He and his
family, no doubt including Shapurji, were inoculated many times in the
ensuing years and none of them succumbed to the plague. Jamsetji Tata
instructed one of his close colleagues, one Burjorji Padshah, to give every
possible assistance to Haffkine. Padshah recruited all the young Parsi students
then studying at St Xavier’s College to help the Russian professor, especially in
the gathering and maintenance of statistical records of his work and,
subsequently, of the programme of inoculation. Shapurji Saklatvala was
among these young volunteer helpers. It was his first association with a man
who was not only a dedicated scientist and humanitarian, but who had been
driven out of his homeland, Russia, because of his revolutionary associations
and anti-Tsarist politics.
Of course, in the situation in which he was now working, Professor Haffkine
had neither time nor energy for politics and devoted himself entirely to his
scientific research and his unceasing efforts to inoculate as many of the
population as possible. But it is surely likely that he talked to Shapurji about
his experiences when the two of them met. It is, I think, safe to assume that,
when Shapurji was sent to a basement room in the European club and
Professor Haffkine had to join him there, that some comment of the situation
must have been made. It is recorded that the Professor was very critical of the
British imperialist authorities, noting as he did the abject poverty,
overcrowding and insanitary housing in which the majority of the Indians
lived; he saw that the victims of the plague were to be found mostly among the
poor, and scarcely any in the European or wealthier quarters of the city. When
Shapurji presented him with the statistics, it is inconceivable that no
comments were made and that no discussions took place between the two
men. Their outlooks had much in common; and no doubt this close
25
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
association between the older idealist and scientist and the young,
compassionate student, must have helped to form and to crystallise the
convictions of Shapurji. Haffkine’s selflessness, like that of the Jesuit Fathers,
must have had a profound influence on his young apostle.
It should not be imagined that all the lessons of compassion were to be found
only outside his family. He was reared in an atmosphere of tenderness and
benevolence, for it was said of Jamsetji Tata that success in business did not
diminish his sensitive and sincere sympathy for the poor; indeed, when
speaking of their problems, it is recorded that his eyes filled with tears and he
was always prepared to spend money for the public good. So it is not
surprising that compassion and caring for the poor were fostered in the heart
and mind of Shapurji, surrounded as he was by great minds of a similar
disposition.
During the Christmas holiday of 1896, the Tata family moved en masse to
their family home in Navsari, an annual treat, especially for all the younger
members of the clan, who were able to enjoy their freedom from studies, with
picnics and all kinds of festivities. During those early weeks of the plague,
when almost half the population of the city had fled, Dorabji Tata insisted on
returning to his office and to the mills in Bombay as soon as the holiday period
was over; it was important to encourage the workers to stay at their posts,
otherwise the business could easily have failed. Many mills in the town closed
down at that time, but the Tata mills kept going, though of course the general
commercial depression had an adverse effect on the development of the
company.
By the time this ‘Christmas holiday’ was over, the vaccine against the plague
had been successfully developed and inoculations began. Jamsetji Tata was a
zealous advocate of vaccination, and when his son Dorabji married in 1898
and the bride’s family entered the Tata household for the wedding, they were
made to subject themselves to inoculation as soon as they arrived! Not
everyone, even among the more educated, were quite so amenable. There was
great antagonism to the system, and many people were terrified that it would
actually give them the disease rather than protect them from it. Professor
Haffkine insisted always that vaccination should be voluntary; then, as now,
the rights of the individual were sometimes protected. Perhaps, though, had it
been compulsory, it might not have taken six years for the plague to be
26
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
brought under control.
But certain regulations had to be obeyed. All victims of the disease had to be
removed from their homes and taken to hospitals and kept in isolation. Since
very few of those struck down recovered, the poor and uneducated thought
that the government was sending them to hospital merely to hasten their
death and they resisted this enforced removal from their homes with ingenuity
and defiance. Deaths also had to be reported and the bodies safely disposed of.
Army and police patrols circulated in the city, seeking out the sick and the
dead.
As early as October 1896, the mill-hands in several of the mills were so
incensed by the laws of segregation and hospitalisation, that about a thousand
of them assembled outside the Arthur Road Hospital and threatened to
demolish the building and to disperse the staff. They pelted the building with
stones and any missiles they could find and attacked any members of the
medical staff who were intrepid enough to emerge. The police had to be called
in to quell what could almost certainly be termed a riot.
Photo: Bombay around 1900
There is a touching story appearing in the official report by the Commissioner
27
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
for Bombay, which demonstrates the intensity of feeling against compulsory
hospitalisation of the victims. A Parsi family had taken in a Hindu boy,
thirteen years of age, an orphan of whom they became very fond. The child
was infected by the plague and the doctor said he must be removed to the
hospital. The ladies of the family refused to let him go. When the doctor
insisted, they armed themselves with kitchen knives and surrounded the sick
bed, declaring that they would all kill themselves if the child were taken from
them. The police were called. But before the patient could be taken, he was
carried away by death. Sad as it no doubt was, his timely demise certainly
saved the police from an ugly confrontation. But if women were prepared to go
to such lengths to prevent a little adopted boy of another religion from being
hospitalised, to what lengths would parents go to keep their own children with
them in the home?
The Commissioner for the city was wise enough to realise the extreme danger
of this widespread terror inspired by the enforcement of the segregation and
hospitalisation laws. He feared more than anything that the Halalkhors and
Bigarries, who constituted the sanitation workforce, would panic and leave the
city. Were this to happen, the disinfecting and flushing of the city’s drains,
water supply, roads and buildings would become impossible; if this essential
service came to a standstill, the only remedy would be to remove the whole
population out of the town, leaving the plague-ridden, bubonic-infested rats to
take over a dead and derelict city. The threat of the withdrawal of the working
people reached a climax on the 30th October and, the Municipal
Commissioner issued proclamations explaining and modifying the
enforcement of segregation and hospitalisation. Although it may have been,
medically speaking, less safe, he thereby dispelled the almost certainty of
extensive riots and wholesale abandonment of the city by the populace.
It was about this time that my father should have sat for his BA degree. Kaikoo
Mehta merely says that he did not sit for his finals, giving no explanation. His
brother Sorab indicated that the reason was that he became totally engrossed
in things religious and philosophic to the detriment of his regular studies. But
it appears that all his college cronies and himself were roped in by Burjorji
Padsaw to help in the gathering and maintaining of statistics to help Professor
Haffkine in his work. The information required was the precise number of
individuals affected by the plague, how many were vaccinated against it and
28
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
how many of those so vaccinated were infected etc. These figures and other
vital information were obtained from actual visits to the homes of potential
and actual victims.
I think it is probable that Shapurji became totally engrossed in this work
which he seems to have continued, alongside his work in the office for the
family firm, until 1902 when, as referred to in his House of Commons speech
already quoted, he says he was the Secretary of one of the Plague Relief
Committees. The fact that Professor Haffkine had sent for him personally, and
that Shapurji called alone on the Professor, indicates that there was quite a
close association between the two men.
In a biography of Haffkine by Mark Popovski, it is said that Haffkine visited
five and six storey tenement buildings, with many families living together in
one room without windows or ventilation. Haffkine is reported as having said,
“When they showed me a row of buildings which housed between 700 and
1000 people and told me that there had been plague cases in similar buildings
throughout the district, I saw at once that there would be no point in carrying
through the measures decided upon by the municipal authorities...”
No doubt, Shapurji visited similar hovels and talked to the inhabitants of
them. Had it not been for his welfare work due to the sickness prevailing, it is
doubtful whether anyone of his social background would have had any
personal contact with those poor people. How could he see their suffering and
return to the splendour of Esplanade House at the end of the day, without
realising the need for a total and absolute change in the social structure of the
community? Jamsetji Tata’s will shows the extent of his properties:
“Esplanade House my residence in Bombay, my townhouse and my country
seat at Nowsari and my bungalow Castle Hill at Matheran.” What feelings of
guilt and injustice must have assailed the earnest young Shapurji as he toured
the plague-ridden slums of the city for Professor Haffkine?
It was in about 1901, according to Spitam Cama and to Kaikoo Mehta, that,
after a period of overwork, Shapurji became very seriously ill. No one has
specified the illness; but he was sent to a sort of sanatorium in the hills of
Panchgani, close to where Spitam Cama’s family were staying. Jamsetji Tata
also had a house there. Mr Cama describes Shapurji as being very depressed,
spending whole days walking on his own in the hills. He wrote poetry at this
time, but since none of it was preserved, we will never know its worth. His
29
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
brother wrote that the doctors at one time thought there was nothing more to
be done to effect a cure and that afterwards, when he had recovered, the family
doctor said it was only his supreme willpower that had pulled him through.
(Years later, we all had a holiday in the Surrey home of my sister-in-law’s
family. In his letter thanking them, my father said how the scenery near
Dorking had reminded him of his retreats in the hills in India where they went
to escape the heat of the plains. Perhaps, during that holiday, he was thinking
nostalgically of those agonising days of sickness and the relief of his recovery).
I do not think it was merely the physical overwork that affected him, but the
emotional stresses of those years while he was working among the
impoverished masses, overtaken by sickness and deprivation. Perhaps,
whatever the illness was, the other effects of those years never really left him,
for he spent his whole life thereafter struggling to better the lot of those
masses of people living in destitution, want and humiliation. What he saw in
those years of the bubonic plague must have remained always in his mind. It
was to those victims of circumstance that he dedicated his life.
The charitable and benevolent community of Parsis, to which he belonged,
always sought to alleviate the distress of the poor. This was not enough for
Shapurji. He sought not to alleviate but to eliminate poverty entirely; and not
only in India, but all over the world. The 1917 revolution in Russia and the
events following upon it led him to believe implicitly that communism could
end abject poverty; it was for this reason and this reason alone, that he
devoted the rest of his life to the propagation of world communism. The
reader may or may not agree with him, but there can be no doubt of his
dedication, sincerity and self sacrifice in what was, and remains, an unpopular
cause in Britain.
30
CHAPTER 3
The Quest for Iron
Prospecting for minerals, 1901 - 1904, prior to the creation of
the Tata Iron & Steel Company (TISCO). Resulting illness.
The next phase of Shapurji’s life was his quest for iron ore and other minerals
necessary for the formation of an iron and steel company. Jamsetji Tata was
one of those rare men who dreamed splendid dreams and translated them into
magnificent reality. Ancient India had had a thriving and skilled iron
manufacture; the iron column of the Kutab Minar in Delhi bears witness to
this; it weighs more than seven tons, and is thought to be three thousand years
old. This indicated that not only was there the skill in ancient India, but the
raw materials must have been there in some abundance.
During the nineteenth century the British rulers in India showed a
considerable interest in the possibility of developing the iron and steel
industry in the country. Various official reports of prospecting for the raw
materials were published. Even as quite a young man, Jamsetji cherished the
vision of adding this industry to his other commercial endeavours. Out of
these aspirations and his hard work and tenacity, a flourishing industry was
created, although Jamsetji himself did not live to see its final blossoming and
fruition. But it was out of his far-sightedness, study and tireless travelling both
in Europe and America that this great enterprise was achieved, bringing such
benefits and wealth to India.
To get such an enterprise off the ground, dreams and visions had to be set
temporarily aside, and practical difficulties had to be faced and overcome with
fortitude, skill and determination. There can be no doubt that Jamsetji Tata
was a supremely colourful and powerful personality who was capable of
making people share his enthusiasms and to work at his side with a dedication
and tirelessness almost equal to his own. He was also very adept at choosing
wisely a loyal and talented group of men to assist him in his ambitious
aspirations. The idea of producing iron and steel simmered for many years in
his mind, during which time he studied official reports and visited districts
31
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
where it was thought that iron ore might be found. But it was not until 1899,
when the rules governing the issue of prospecting licenses were amended and
relaxed that he took positive steps to involve his company in this up and
coming new industry.
In the summer of 1901, Jamsetji Tata travelled to London, where he met Lord
George Hamilton, Secretary of State for India, whose great desire it was to see
industries in India developed with Indian capital. He greeted Mr Tata’s project
enthusiastically and assured him that he would solicit the support of the
Viceroy, Lord Curzon, in such an important venture. Fortified by such
promises of official co-operation, Jamsetji returned to India where he
obtained prospecting licenses for the Lohara and Peepulgaon areas in the
Chanda District.
Before setting out again on his travels, he put his son Dorabji in charge of the
administrative side of the business and put Shapurji in charge of the actual
explorations in the arduous search for iron ore, suitable coal and limestone
deposits. It was seemingly a strange choice; Shapurji’s brother, Sorab, said
that Father had never been very strong or robust; also, he had only fairly
recently recovered from a severe illness. To lead a team of exploration in
terrain that was certainly wild and rugged, if not actually hostile, called for
physical stamina as well as a strong and pertinacious character. To select
Shapurji for this task shows yet again Jamsetji’s perspicacity and wisdom. The
physical challenge was probably the best cure for the young man’s ailments
and, although he and his band of workers did not succeed in their quest, this
preliminary expedition was helpful to the future larger one that accomplished
the final breakthrough; and Shapurji was to be a member of that successful
team also.
The Chanda district is situated in the southernmost area of the central
provinces. Much of the land is covered with dense forest, extending over the
plains and plateaux alike, surrounding small villages and covering the valley
floor that is interlaced with many rivers. There were tigers and leopards in the
vicinity and bears were quite frequently seen. The summer and autumn
months were extremely hot and unhealthy. Transport was by bullock cart or
on horse-back from the town of Nagpur in the north of the district. Nagpur
was the centre and headquarters from which the expedition set forth; it was
about five hundred miles from Bombay, being then the terminus of the Great
32
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Indian Peninsula Railway. Jamsetji had had a house there ever since he set up
the Empress cotton mills in the town in 1877.
During this early search, Shapurji set up camps in the various blocks which
were to be examined for the desired minerals. From 1893 there had been very
poor harvests of the rice, linseed, gram and wheat, which were the staple crops
of the vicinity, and in 1896 and 1897 there was severe famine in the Chanda
district. The sparse population had been reduced to great poverty and
hardship and shortage of both food and water. It was a predominantly
agricultural community, with some fishermen working in small boats along
the network of rivers. Sometimes Shapurji’s team slept in the open in the
bullock carts in which much of their travelling was accomplished. But quite
often they shared the meagre hospitality of the villagers and slept in their huts
and houses. So once again, Shapurji was thrown into the company of the
poverty-stricken and simple people, this time, actually sharing their humble,
often squalid, shelter. Years later, as a member of the British parliament, he
was to demand their freedom and to advocate communism as a means of
bettering their lot and offering them education and a decent standard of living.
He must have been, I suspect, the only member of that illustrious body, who
had enjoyed the hospitality of these humble villagers. No wonder, therefore,
that he spoke with such heartfelt and impassioned oratory on their behalf.
Once more putting Dorabji in overall charge, Jamsetji left India again in 1902
for America, where he toured extensively, discussing not only the iron and
steel project but looking closely into the cotton industry as well. After much
journeying and meeting numerous experts in the metallurgical field, he went
to Pittsburgh. There he met Julian Kennedy, one of the world’s leading
metallurgical engineers, who advised him that the exploration work must be
undertaken by an experienced specialist and not left to amateurs, however
dedicated and persevering they might be. It was in Pittsburgh that he was
finally introduced to an eminent consultant engineer, Charles Page Perin, who
was destined to figure largely in the success story of the Tata Iron and Steel
Company. Mr Perin in his turn, being unable to go immediately to India
himself, arranged for his partner, geologist C.M. Weld, to leave for India
straight away, even before Tata himself left the United States to return home.
Therefore, in April 1903, Weld, Dorabji Tata and Shapurji set out together for
further rugged exploration. They endured great heat, shortage of drinkable,
33
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
clean water and suffered many privations. Villages were scattered and for the
most part the team was in wild and hostile country; they only procured tents
after they had been in the field for some time, and lived very primitively and
underwent great physical hardship. Weld was to spend four years on the
project, and he and Shapurji apparently got on well together. Talking to my
brother, Beram, soon after Daddy died, Kaikoo Mehta said of this period in
Father’s life:
“[Shapur] went out working with Mr Weld. He was always rather a
favourite with J.N. [Tata] in spite of his eccentricities; he thought him to
be a talented young chap. When J.N. made use of him, he was in entire
agreement with J.N.’s views regarding the Tata Iron and Steel Company,
whereas Dorabji was not. Dorabji also agreed to go but did it in an
orthodox manner, whereas Weld and Shapur used to rough it and
prospect. [Shapur] got on well with the labouring classes, who used to
be forced into service, but this he always condemned... the unofficial
means of getting things done in India. Tyranny! Tyranny!... imposed by
the underlings of the great Sahib. But Weld was a nice chap— they got on
well.
“There was disagreement with Dorabji, who was always opposed to him.
He used to put Shapur down as much as possible in negotiations.
Dorabji’s views were different— he wanted to back out and said his
Father was on a wild goose chase. [It was a wild goose that subsequently
was to lay a generous clutch of golden eggs!] He felt that European
expertise was needed. But J.N. always had the idea of making these
enterprises entirely Indian... Shapur agreed with him and helped him, of
course, as a younger man... J.N. relied on him and gave serious
consideration to his views. But Shapur never got on with Dorabji, who
could not stand Shapur’s unorthodox views. They always held each
other in mutual contempt— more on Dorabji’s side than Shapurji’s.”
Kaikoo Mehta is a very reliable witness of Shapur’s early days and his
relationships within the family. Kaikoo’s father, Sir Phirozeshah Mehta, was a
close and intimate friend of Jamsetji, and the two men met regularly at least
once a week when they were both in Bombay. Kaikoo also worked for the firm
of Tatas and, after an initial period in Japan, worked for the firm in London all
his life. He and Shapurji remained close and affectionate friends right up to
34
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
the time of Shapurji’s death in 1936, and he spent most weekends with us, and
was really like a second father to all of us children.
Perhaps Spitam Cama, being not quite such an intimate friend as Kaikoo
Mehta, is a slightly less dependable chronicler of those early years; but his
version of Shapurji’s status within the family supports what Kaikoo Mehta
contends. He wrote:
“...Your Father went to school when he was ten. He was always
Jamsetji’s favourite. J.N. would always say to Shapur and not to Dorab,
‘Get this; do this,’ and formed the habit of entrusting all jobs to him. So
that although Dorab handled the financial side of TISCO [Tata Iron &
Steel Company] foundation, it was Shapurji who was given the more
difficult and responsible job of the actual prospecting. Dorab never
overcame this boyish jealousy, and this, I think, was the cause of most of
their later quarrels. They were always at loggerheads as children and
remained so as men.”
Kaikoo Mehta said that the two brothers, Dorab and Ratan, were constantly
quarrelling, so Jamsetji finally decided to let Dorabji find his own quarters in
Malabar Hill. This was in 1898, the year of Dorabji’s marriage to Mehrbai
Bhaba; but normally he would have continued to live in his father’s house.
Ratan had married in 1892, and he and his wife, Nawajbai, continued to live
with Jamsetji until his death in 1904. Kaikoo Mehta also said that “the
Saklatvalas moved out,” and that only Shapurji and his mother remained in
Esplanade House with Jamsetji, Ratan and Nawajbai. Ratan and Shapurji
always remained affectionate and good friends up to the time of Ratan’s early
death in 1918. But of course it was Dorabji, as the elder son, who always had
more power and influence in the firm.
According to Sorab Saklatvala, after working with Weld and Dorabji for a
while, it was decided to give up prospecting in the Chanda district; at this
point, Dorabji left this work, and Shapurji and Mr Weld went on alone to
continue the search in another area called Dondi-Lohara.
35
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Photo: The prospectors
L-R: Dorabji Tata, Shapurji Saklatvala, Ratanji Tata(?), C.M. Weld
While Shapurji and Mr Weld were on their adventurous task, the health of
J.N. Tata was causing all the family great concern. He was persuaded to have a
short holiday in Egypt and, from there, Dorabji, who was already in Europe,
insisted on taking him to Vienna to consult an eminent doctor there. While
they were passing through Naples Jamsetji learned of the death of his wife in
Bombay. This shock and grief could only have made his own condition worse.
He went to take treatment in a clinic in Vienna. Dorabji and Mehrbai were
with him; and Shapurji’s youngest brother, Beram, who was studying
metallurgy in Berlin at this time, also went there.
The ailing Jamsetji went then with his family doctor to stay in Baden
Nauheim, a German spa town, but his condition quickly deteriorated, and
Dorabji and his wife, who had stayed on in Vienna, were sent for. There,
surrounded by his son and daughter-in-law, his nephew Beram, and his
cousin, R.D. Tata, Jamsetji died on 19th May 1904. They all accompanied his
body to England, where he was buried in Brookwood Cemetery in Woking. His
marble mausoleum, and those of his two sons, still stand in the Parsi burial
ground there.
I can find no record of where Shapurji was when he learned of the death of his
uncle, but it seems likely that he was still in the wilds with C.M. Weld. His
brother Sorab, writing to my brother Beram after Daddy’s death, said that
Shapurji was very depressed by the loss of his uncle. There is no doubt that
there had always been a special bond between the two of them; apart from the
fact that Jamsetji thought highly of the young Shapur’s capabilities, he was
also the eldest son of his favourite young sister, Jerbai.
Apparently, when Jamsetji was making various dispositions on his deathbed,
he particularly commended to the care of his sons, his sister and Shapurji’s
mother, Jerbai. Partly due to this very strong affection from Jamsetji and
partly due to divergencies in character, Shapurji was disliked by Dorabji and
36
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
also by R.D. Tata, another influential cousin.
Apart from his natural grief, Shapur must also have felt personally vulnerable
when the loving protection of his powerful uncle was taken away from him.
His brother not only said that he was very depressed but also that he almost
began to despair of his future. This blow must have been even harder to bear,
coming as it probably did while Shapurji was experiencing such hardships,
loneliness and toil in the distant tracts and jungles of central and eastern
India. His fears for his future were certainly not unfounded, as will be
explained in a later chapter.
After the death of his father, Dorabji returned to India and took charge of the
firm, including, of course, the planned iron and steel project. During this time
there were other prospectors in the field, and the search for minerals became
highly competitive; hope of success was diminishing. But, soon after this, one
P.N. Bose had retired from his post in the Geological Survey and had taken
employment with the Maharajah of Mourbanj. He wrote to Tata Sons &
Company (according to my father’s letter quoted below, this was probably at
Father’s instigation) inviting them to go and inspect the iron ore in that state.
After a difficult train journey, Dorabji Tata, Charles Page Perin, C.M. Weld and
Shapurji were received in the capital by Bose and the Maharajah, who
extended to them a most cordial welcome. Dorabji then went on to Calcutta,
and the rest of the party went to investigate the Mayurbhanj territory.
The state covers more than four thousand square miles, and at its centre there
lay a vast tract of densely forested hills, at that time, still largely unexplored. It
was to this inhospitable land that the Maharajah of the day had invited the
experts from Tata’s to venture in the summer of 1904. It must have been an
awe inspiring and daunting undertaking. The country was wild and it had
remained virtually untouched by successive conquerors. In the jungles,
elephants and other big game had had the place to themselves almost since
time began. But this time, the efforts of the Tata explorers were crowned with
complete success, and all they looked for was discovered in abundance.
But while enduring the perils, stresses and adversities of the jungles, Shapurji
succumbed to malaria, as did also the unhappy Mr Weld who, when suffering
from the disease, was forced to walk thirty miles or so to the nearest railway.
To add to the distressing symptoms of the disease itself, Shapurji’s servant
administered too large a dose of the medicine they carried with them, which
37
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
resulted in the permanent paralysis of his toes. All his life he wore soft boots
made specially for him, and during the early stages of his sickness he walked
on crutches for several months.
This illness was to have a more profound effect on his life than any of his
experiences hitherto. For it was as a result of his long indisposition that he
visited the hydropathic spa in Matlock in Derbyshire when he came to
England in 1905— and that is where he met my mother. But that story will find
its romantic place in the next chapter.
Meanwhile, Dorabji worked indefatigably organising the finance, the licenses,
the setting up of the company, and putting together all the knowledge and
facts that so many experts in various fields had collected. The great Tata Iron
and Steel Works were finally created in Jamshedpur, a city thus named to
honour its great founder.
But with his uncle dead, his health failing and faced with antagonism from his
cousins, Dorabji and R.D. Tata, Shapurji was gradually being pushed out of
the business, and was being largely ignored while the structure of the company
was taking shape. It was probably to remove him from the centre of activity
that Dorabji took Shapurji to England in 1905.
In the letter from Shapurji to an unknown recipient to which I have already
referred, written probably some time in 1926, he wrote the following about his
contribution to the Iron and Steel project:
“Then comes the unjust financial treatment of myself in business
matters. Regardless of our ability in other directions, J.N.T., with his
patriarchal guardianship destined us to work in and live for the firm of
the family, even in one letter describing his two sons and eight nephews
as ten grand-children of his father under his equal responsibility. Our
compensation for work and loyalty was fixity of tenure. Sir Dorabji’s
disregard of these unwritten moral contracts is really an abuse of his
legal might.
“The iron scheme was impossible without the part I played, and for
which I had even asked J.N.T. to cable and cancel the Paris programme
fixed for me, as the new mining department was not worked by anybody
with a faith in it. It was predicted to be an exploration ending as an
exploration. The Central Provinces explorations in parts defined by
Jamsetji did prove a failure, and when I persevered going further
38
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
eastward Sir Dorabji wrote scolding me and said that the Tatas were
nothing to the iron scheme, that the iron scheme was nothing to the
Tatas beyond keeping faith with Lord George Hamilton for prospecting
Lohara and adjoining areas: that J.N.T.’s health could not warrant new
responsibilities and Dorab himself had no desire to assume them.
“I pacified Sir Dorabji and we reached the Dhondi ores. Then arose
commercial difficulties of long distance between the three requisite
minerals. Weld was instructed by Sir Dorabji to wind up and make a full
report of technical data, leaving commercial propositions to the
judgement of commercial experts. Weld, too, was eager to return home
after a long delay. We hurriedly revisited Padampur Lime Fields and
went over to the coal area and stayed with a colliery manager, Mr
Sheridan. There, unwary words fell from Mrs Sheridan’s mouth about
Mr Maclaren’s quarrel with the Bengal Iron Company and how he was
about to disclose to them a new find of iron ores etc. I pricked up my
ears, but Weld got angry and impatient at my suggestions of this last
effort and he felt on that basis he would never be able to leave India.
“We both wrote our respective views to Bombay. Before Burjorji
Padshah’s reply reprimanding me arrived, Weld and I had made peace
and he gave Shrinivas Rao [Weld’s assistant] full technical instructions
for a hasty survey, and he went away. The Mayurbhanj ores were at last
located. In Nagpur I got little support to follow this up. Through parties
that Shrinivas Rao had found in Cuttack, I got Mr P. Bose to write to me,
inviting business terms in my capacity as holding a power of attorney
for J.N. Tata. My quality of perseverance was still receiving
discouragement, but at last, with a promise to Bezonji to make this my
last effort, I got necessary funds and travelled up to Paripada and
Mayurbhanj, stayed there four days and settled a good provisional
agreement on new terms, signing same on the strength of my power of
attorney for J.N. Tata.
“This was the birth of the Tata Iron Company, instead of a bunch of
exploration reports; and these ores were prevented from going to the
Bengal Iron Company; I was working as a member of the family in the
family’s firm, in hopes of permanent remunerative interest for the
future. My actual salary was 50 rupees a month for the period of hardest
39
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
work and discoveries in regions which had never figured in any Tata
mind or schemes...”
Jamsetji thought of Shapur as being persevering, while Dorabji saw this same
quality in him as troublesome obstinacy. There seems little doubt that
Shapurji’s obstinacy had extended the search for iron, limestone and coal until
they were eventually found. Had he been a more obedient and docile
character, it is quite possible that the Tata Iron and Steel Company would
never have been formed; it certainly would have been much delayed. There is
also little doubt that after the minerals had been located and the company was
being structured, Shapurji received no recognition of his contribution. He was
sent to England with Sir Dorabji and his wife in 1905, largely to get him away
from the central organisation in Bombay and Jamshedpur.
[Editor’s note: The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography states, “A further
reason for his departure was a number of clashes with the British authorities
in India, first during the search for minerals, and later over the administration
of the plague relief work, ’’-but note the error in chronology].
But it was out of this family rejection that his destiny was to be fulfilled; apart
from his contribution to Indian freedom and politics in general, I am myself
profoundly thankful that his European life was imposed on him— how else
would I have been born? And I love life, am grateful for it, and would not have
missed it for anything! So let us move on to the next chapter and see how
Shapurji fared in England after his arrival there in November 1905.
[Editor’s note: TISCO issued its first shares to the public in August 1907,
becoming the first corporation to be financed in this way by the people of
India. The company, now the multinational Tata Steel, provides a history of its
formation on the website celebrating its centenary; in that account,
Saklatvala’s role is not accorded the same importance as that given by him in
the letter above. Both accounts were written in retrospect and to serve a
particular purpose.]
40
CHAPTER 4
The Sun Veers to the West
Arrival in England in 1905 for medical treatment. Early
political interest in trade union and socialist meetings.
Marriage to Sarah (Sehri) Marsh, 1907. Sarah’s early life.
Thus it was that Shapurji first came to England in November 1905,
accompanied by Dorabji and Mehrbai, Dorab’s wife. He was broken in health,
depressed by his uncle’s death the previous year, and apprehensive about his
future prospects, which were now solely in the command of his antagonistic
cousin, who was, since Jamsetji’s death, in full control of all the family
business projects, including the development of the Iron and Steel Company
to which Shapurji had contributed so much. London in a foggy November can
have done little to dispel his gloom
Spitam Cama wrote that he saw Shapur on his third day in England, and
described him as looking very ill and worn, and still walking on crutches.
The three of them stayed only a few days in London and then they all went to
Matlock in Derbyshire, to Smedley’s Hydrotherapy Institution. Around the
time of their visit, the Matlock Guardian printed the following description of
this beautiful part of England:
“Mr Ruskin wrote of the Matlock district in the highest terms of
eulogium. The greatest of England’s connoisseurs of art gave Matlock
scenery precedence over all the rest of the world. He says: ‘Learned
Traveller, gentle and simple... think of what this little piece of mid-
England has brought into so narrow a compass of all that should be
most precious to you. In its very minuteness it is the most educational of
all the districts of beautiful landscapes known to me. When Nature had
completed Switzerland, there was left one beautiful fragment for which
she had no further use in that country; so she set it in Derbyshire, amid
a framework of romantic hills, and in time it came to be called The Gem
Of The Peak. That gem is Matlock.’”
The health-giving springs in the area had been commercialised and flourished
41
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
as early as the year 1698. When the British aristocracy were cut off from the
continent, first by the French Revolution and then by the Napoleonic Wars,
they flocked to the watering places in England, and Matlock became a
fashionable resort. With the introduction of the railways and a station in
Matlock, the popularity of the springs increased yet again. There were some
five or six large hydros in Matlock at that time, but the most important one
was undoubtedly Smedley’s, built in 1853 and accommodating more than two
hundred and fifty guests. A local textile manufacturer, John Smedley, had
bought and developed the grand and imposing house on Matlock Bank,
standing high on the rim of the valley in which the town lies; there he started
his hydro. He advertised it thus:
“Winter residence, with all the advantages of English home comforts
and proximity to relatives and friends, at Smedley’s Institution, Matlock
Bank, near Matlock Bridge Station, Derbyshire; with or without the
peculiar Mild Hydropathic treatment. Conducted by W.B. Hunter MD
CM Glas. Extensive saloons, lofty and well ventilated bedrooms, all kept
at summer temperature night and day, without draughts. Charges
moderate.”
Photo: Smedley’s Hydro, Matlock
It was to this idyllic spot that our three “learned travellers, gentle and simple,”
arrived. Dorabji and Mehrbai stayed only for a short while, there being
42
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
nothing specifically wrong with them; but Shapurji, still suffering from
malaria and from the poisoning resulting from the wrong dosage of his
medicine, stayed on until the following June. Whether it was the result of the
“peculiar Mild Hydropathic treatment,” the rest after recent toil or his
romance with my mother, no one can tell, but apparently all his physical
ailments were cured by his stay in Smedley’s Hydro.
Here, once again, I must interrupt Shapurji’s narrative and introduce you to
the girl who was to become his wife and the loving and devoted mother to us
five children. For I have reached the point in my story when the two of them
are about to meet.
It was such an unlikely encounter that even now, years after the courtship, the
marriage, the parenthood and their death, I still hold my breath as I write
about it, for fear that this strange duo might after all miss each other and
negate my own life and that of my brothers and sister.
I often think how minuscule is a human creature, and how minute a portion of
the surface of the universe each one of us covers; so what a miracle it was that
these two tiny and insignificant specks of life should find themselves at exactly
the same spot on the earth’s crust and at exactly the same moment in time. For
he was born in the East, she in the West; he grew up in affluence, and she in
humble poverty; he had an academic education, while she attended a one-
roomed village school only until she was thirteen; it is true that he had heard
all about Matlock, but I doubt if she knew very much about Bombay. (In the
village school, geography was taught only to the boys, while the girls bent
diligently over their needlework). But thankfully they did meet, and I and a
clan spanning three more generations are here on earth to prove and celebrate
the fact.
Above Matlock looms Riber Castle; it is only a mock castle, but its imitative
mediaeval shape dominates the surroundings, as it stands on a height which
makes it a familiar landmark in Matlock and in the little village of Tansley, two
miles to the east
During my mother’s childhood Tansley boasted one shop, one church, one
chapel, one school (which consisted of one classroom) and two pubs, one in
the heart of the village, called the Gate, and one on the edge of the village that
is called, I think, the Green Dragon. [Editor’s note: Tansley’s two pubs are
currently called the Tavern and the Royal Oak. There is however, a Gate in
43
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Matlock]. All these amenities and some few houses are built on the slopes of
the moor side, leading southward and upward off the road to the height of the
moors. There at the top of the village, and a little remote from it, was a cottage
called Foxholes, surrounded by moorland, with a few modest grey stone
dwellings scattered around fairly close by; the fields are upholstered with
cushions of grass growing above underground springs.
It was here to this cottage that a young quarryman, Harry Marsh, took his
bride Annie Jane, in 1884; this was just about the time that the young
Shapurji, four and a half thousand miles away, was eagerly looking forward to
celebrating his tenth birthday.
Four years later, on the 10th September 1888, Harry and Annie Jane
welcomed to the world their third daughter and fourth child. She was baptised
Sarah Elizabeth but was always called Sally.
By 1904 the couple had twelve children, ten of them daughters. I remember
my grandma as a very quiet, staid and composed character, very puritanical
and correct. But she obviously had her lighter moments, for she once confided
in a friend that her Harry had only to hang his trousers on the bedpost and she
fell for another baby.
Photo: Foxholes, Tansley, Derbyshire
Strangely enough it was not Annie Jane who lost her health creating this
minor baby-boom, but the formerly robust Harry. After only a few years of
marriage he contracted rheumatic fever and was a semi-invalid for most of his
life thereafter. For a few years he was able to work again in the stone quarries,
spasmodically, but for many years he was unable to work at all.
44
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Annie Jane managed to provide for the family, and all the children had to
participate in running the household. Sally was baking all their bread by the
time she was seven; and when the doctor came to deliver yet another baby, he
was surprised to smell bread baking when he knew the lady of the house was
hors de combat on her bed of labour upstairs. When he saw the scrawny little
waif called Sally competently acting as the family baker, he took her in his
horse and carriage back to his house, where his wife gave her a slice of cake
and a glass of milk. This spontaneous kindness so impressed Sally that she
talked of it to me even when she was in her eighties; and, remembering her
own delight, she was always ready to give sweets or fruit or toys as unexpected
gifts to children she met casually, all through her long life.
The Marsh sisters were all sent out on the moors in the autumn by four o’clock
in the morning to make sure of a good harvest of the bilberries which were so
abundant on the hillside. Annie Jane made jam with the free crop and walked
the two miles or so into Matlock and sold it to Smedley’s Hydro; in return,
apart from the cash, she also received generous basins of dripping [meat fat],
which was one of the mainstays of the family diet. She also sold them cakes
and butter made from the milk of their one cow, and at one time took fish
round to sell in a little pony and trap. They grew their own vegetables, Harry
digging trenches, one child behind him scattering manure into the trench,
another followed with the potatoes or the seed and a third would fill it in with
the freshly dug earth.
For all their poverty and meagre way of life they were a really joyful family, the
parents loving towards each other and towards the children, and the children
loving their parents and each other. And although the babies arrived in quick
succession, there was general rejoicing at each birth. The older children took
care of the smaller ones. When Sally was ten, she was put in charge of the
latest arrival when the baby was a few months old. Of course there were about
four children to a bed, and one night the baby, Clara, was crying; still half
asleep, Sally lay and patted the infant and sang, ‘Come to the Saviour, come to
the Lord,’ without opening her eyes. The baby continued to howl. At last,
Father Harry stood in the doorway, candle held aloft at the end of a night-
shirt-clad arm. “Sally, the baby’s cryin’!” Upon investigation, poor little baby
Clara was found to be howling under the bed, while sleepy Sally was
comforting the pillow!
45
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Their pleasures were simple. All the brood belonged to the Band of Hope and
signed the Pledge almost as soon as they could write. My mother often
hummed the song “My drink is water bright, water bright, water bright, my
drink is water bright from the crystal stream.” (When my eldest brother was a
general practitioner he once said to one of his patients, “What you need is
plenty of water bright— drink as much of it as you can.” The poor bewildered
patient returned in a few days and said she had asked all the chemists in town
and none of them had ever heard of water bright!) They sang and recited at
Band of Hope concerts, and went on Sunday school outings.
Their sabbaths were kept intolerably holy (well, it would have been intolerable
for me, but they accepted it all with joyous grace apparently). Sunday
mornings were spent in chapel, singing Wesleyan hymns, and in the
afternoons they all trouped off to Sunday school. In the evenings Harry would
gather his brood about him and sing to them in a rich baritone; my Aunty
Hannah, child number six, always said she enjoyed listening to Paul Robeson
because “he sounds like my Dad.” How we daughters flatter our fathers— I
dare say I am guilty of it too as I write!
In spite of all the affection, or perhaps because of it, the family was strictly
brought up. Annie Jane, understandably in view of her fecundity and fiscal
responsibilities, could be very sharp tongued. And while it was Harry’s pride
that he had brought up twelve “childer” and never raised his hand to one of
them, he certainly raised his voice from time to time. When Sally was about
sixteen she went for an innocent evening stroll with a lad called Tom Twigg.
She was met at home by an irate Father. He asked menacingly, “’ast a bin aht
wi’ Tom Twigg?” and when Sally acknowledged that she had, he roared
between clenched teeth, his voice rising to a high-pitched crescendo, “Well,
tha’s let on a bonny booger now, so ’elp my boody liver if tha’ ’asna!”
Apparently, he and Mr Twigg, senior, had fallen out over the price of a cow.
Sally crept to bed, and any romance with Tom Twigg was nipped in the bud.
More than seventy years later, when I was negotiating with the Derbyshire
County Council for the planting of Mother’s memorial trees, one of the letters
was signed by a Tom Twigg; I wrote and told him that had our grandfathers
not fallen out over the sale of a cow, we might have been brother and sister!
At thirteen Sally left school and went to take care of a publican’s baby. She had
to report at six in the morning; she washed the long hall floor and lit the fires
46
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
and then took over the baby. She did all the cleaning of the private dwelling
(not the pub itself), and for this she was able to take home and give to her
parents half-a-crown a week.
Sally blossomed in the unfamiliarly lavish surroundings; she was a rarely
beautiful girl, hardworking and of a very gentle and graceful nature, and she
soon graduated to the dining room, where she worked as a waitress. The hours
were long and the work was hard, but she was used to that. She enjoyed new
friendships and the companionship of a large staff, and thought herself lucky
to be there. Whereas at home her diet had been mainly vegetables and bread-
and-dripping or bread-and-treacle, in the hydro she was serving a profusion of
delicacies, and she had her choice of the menus when the guests had finished
their meals.
Sally learned a little basic French from the menus; for although she had had
little formal education, Sally had a brisk and creative mind, which was to make
her a supportive, congenial and adaptable partner for Shapurji later on in my
story. Varied entertainments were provided for the guests and, although Sally
obviously could not participate, she enjoyed seeing the dances, the balls, the
concerts and tableaux-vivants as well as the sessions of cards and other games.
How stimulating all this must have been after the quiet and confined life in
Tansley!
Photo: Smedley’s Drawing Room
The dining room was spacious, with pillared archways on either side, and it
47
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
served as a ballroom or concert hall after dinner had been served and the huge
table that ran down the centre of the room had been removed. There were also
small tables set in the window alcoves; and it was at one of these that Dorabji,
Mehrbai and Shapurji sat down to dine. They arrived in November 1905, but it
was not until March 1906 that he found the opportunity and the courage to
speak to Sally at last.
When, after my father’s death, my brother Beram intended writing his
biography, my mother wrote the following notes which will tell the story of the
courtship better than I can:
“[Shapurji] saw me first on his birthday, March 28th 1906. He asked
Maria Marsh who I was. She told him I was her cousin, so he asked her
to call me over to his table and introduce me to him; which she did.
With his beard, I took him for an old man. He gave me flowers almost
every day and asked me to go for walks. I was too frightened to do so,
but I kept saying I would just to satisfy him for the time being.
Whenever I went out he would walk behind me.
“One afternoon I went to Matlock Bath by bus; when I offered my fare,
the conductor said a gentleman behind had paid. I gave a blind man a
penny in the afternoon without knowing Daddy was following;
afterwards he told me that he had given the blind man two shillings and
told him what a lucky man he was as he had been given a penny by the
sweetest girl in the world.
“One day I got a note from a shoe shop... would I go in and try on some
shoes. There was a note inside a special pair of shoes which I was to try
on from him saying that he hoped to be able to buy all my shoes from
now on. I happened to say I would like a bicycle, so he bought one and
pretended to give away raffle tickets to several people and I was given
the ‘winning ticket.’
48
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Photo: Shapurji Saklatvala
“The day he left the Hydro, he asked me to see him off on the 2.19 train.
I said yes but had no intention of going. My friend and I went out in the
afternoon. When we returned we got a phone message from Daddy to
say he was on Matlock Bath station and he intended to remain there
however long it was until I went to see him. I went at nine o’clock at
night and said good-bye to him.
“He wrote to me twice a day after he went away. He came one Sunday
for the day. I saw him for a few minutes; he tried to hold my arm when
we were walking; I told him not to do that or people might think we
were engaged. This was always a joke in later years. Then he came to
Tansley for my eighteenth birthday. He saw Dad and Mother and he got
them on his side. We all went in a charabanc to the Peveril of the Peak
Hotel. After lunch Daddy [Shapurji] said, ‘Come for a walk in the
garden.’ I said ‘No.’ He said, ‘It’s all right, Dad is coming too,’ We had
reached the rose garden when Dad said, ‘Sally, I have a birthday present
for you.’ And then Daddy said he was the present— imagine my
disappointment.
“From then on he considered we were engaged, but I only accepted the
engagement ring on November 6th (the date was in the ring, which I
49
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
lost). This was when I came to London to see his mother and his brother
Sorab. She stayed in England until the following summer and most of
the time she was at Smedley’s. She then went to America, where she
died on November 23rd 1907...”
Quite early in the courtship, Shapurji changed Sally’s name to Sehri, a word of
his own invention, conjured from Sarah and Sally; this was because ‘Sally’ was
very similar to a swear-word in his language, Gujarati. Her parents and sisters
always continued to call her Sally, but in our home, socially and officially, she
went by the new name of Sehri (pronounced like ‘Mary’).
So it seems that Shapurji pursued the shyly elusive Sally with the same dogged
persistence and imagination with which he had recently sought out the iron
ore in the Indian jungles. Once again, his obstinacy paid off. They were
married on August 14th 1907 in the Parish Church of St Thomas, Moorside,
Oldham. The Marsh family had moved from Tansley in the hope of finding
more lucrative employment in Oldham for all the sisters, now growing up and
many of them now of an age to earn their own living.
Shapurji’s mother was staying still in Smedley’s, where she got to know Sally
well, and a bond of affection was forged between these two ladies both so
loved by Shapurji.
Sadly, although my mother treasured all my father’s letters, when he died she
placed them all in his coffin with him, together with her wedding shoes which
he had sentimentally kept for all those years. In a way it is better that they
have been lost to us, for they must have been intimate and personal, and no
biography should provide an excuse for usurping the privacy of individuals,
even after their death. But I have to confess that, were they available, I would
have read them with affectionate interest.
But not all Saklatvala’s time in Matlock had been spent in wilful dalliance. It
seems that from almost the first day of his arrival in Matlock he involved
himself in political and trade union affairs. This is recorded by one Mrs
Richards, writing to my brother in 1937. She had kept a glass and china shop
opposite the Hydro, and apparently Father used to go in there and talk to her.
No doubt he must have found the regimen at the Hydro pretty boring, and for
the first few weeks at least, being still on crutches, he probably could not move
very far afield. She writes:
“[...Saklatvala] came in one day to make some small purchases. During
50
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
his conversation then and on subsequent occasions I soon discovered he
was very interested in politics, at that time, socialistic. Your Father
found I was interested and he would quite often come into the shop...
and talk long and earnestly of the injustices meted out to the working
classes... His whole thought and actions were how to get people
interested in helping to bring about a better life and improved
conditions for the workers. If one’s thoughts were totally opposite to
those of your Father, his sincerity and deep feeling for the cause he held
so dear could not leave one unaffected.
“About this time... he was recovering from a severe illness and bodily he
was very frail, but so great mentally. I remember on his birthday, 28th
March 1906, he came into the shop and said he was going to have a
birthday party! And would I prepare it? I readily consented and on my
asking how many were coming, he said, much to his own amusement,
‘You and I!’ [This was the day on which he first spoke to Sally Marsh and
he must have been in a happy and jocular mood!]
“I well recollect on that day he was feeling very strongly the indifference
shown towards the working people and was troubled that those who
held his convictions and were in power appeared to move so slowly or
not at all. [At this stage, he was still a Liberal.] I was always a very ready
and interested listener and after some long talk upon these subjects he
would say he felt better for having got them off his chest!
“He expressed a wish to pay a visit to the potteries and I accompanied
him as was his wish. Having to change trains at Derby we went to see
the Crown Derby Works. He enjoyed seeing the wonderful and beautiful
pottery made. On continuing our journey to Stoke-on-Trent, the train
passed through a very heavy snowstorm, which, I believe, was the first
snow your Father had seen... he went to London. From there I received
from him long letters... still on the theme of politics and urging me to do
what I could in an endeavour to bring others along and get them
interested in helping to better the lives and conditions of my own class.
“The next I heard of your Father, he was in Oldham; he wrote telling me
that he and your Mother were to be married and would my husband be
his best man. Unfortunately my husband was away in Scotland. Your
Mother and Father came to stay with us with a wee babe and if you are
51
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
their eldest son, you were that babe. The last time I saw your Father was
about two years ago [1935], when he came to Nottingham to speak. I
would like to say my life has been made the richer for having known so
great a man and I am quite sure there are many others who can say the
same. In conclusion may I quote these words which your Father wrote
in a book of mine on January 20th 1906: ‘Be strong! Be good! Be pure!
The right only shall endure.”’
This letter definitely makes it plain that almost as soon as he had arrived in
England, he was already committed to a belief in liberal politics; the politics of
his family and of his social milieu had always been liberal. In London he gave
the National Liberal Club as his address, but it would seem that he had already
advanced far along the road of compassionate socialism as early as 1905.
There is also among my brother Beram’s letters, one from J.R. Clynes, MP and
president of the National Union of General and Municipal Workers, dated 2nd
March, 1937, in which he says:
“I attended a number of meetings under the auspices of the above Union
held in Matlock and one or two adjacent places during 1907. We, of
course, spoke not only on Trade Union and Industrial matters, but dealt
with political questions from the socialist standpoint. Your Father
attended these meetings, and in due course he asked me to arrange a
talk with him. We had very pleasant conversations, and, as I learned
later, he gave me some credit for turning his views in the socialist
direction...”
However, I think that the claim that he had turned my father’s views in the
socialist direction is really contradicted by Mrs Richard’s letter, which makes
it quite clear that Shapurji held virtually socialist views as early as 1905; in any
case, he must have been moving very close to socialism to have been attending
the meetings at which he met Clynes. Spitam Cama also said that Shapurji
knew Keir Hardie well, “...was quite a pal of his,” but there is no indication of
the date of their meeting.
The Matlock newspapers of the day report frequent Liberal Party meetings
which were enthusiastically attended, often to over-flowing. I feel safe in
assuming that Shapurji must have attended some of these.
52
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Photo: 730 Holloway Road, London
[Editor’s note: Keir Hardie, also a former Liberal, was a founder member of
the Independent Labour Party in 1893, and one of the first two Labour MPs
elected to parliament in 1900].
After marrying, Shapurji and Sally came to London, where they found rooms
at 730 Holloway Road. It was now that Shapurji’s political involvement really
began.
53
CHAPTER 5
The Quest for a Political Solution
Joining the Socialist Party, the Clarion Club and the
Independent Labour Party. His mother’s death in 1907.
Association with Bipin Chandra Pal, Arthur Field, J.R.
Clynes and Ramsay MacDonald. Brief return to Bombay in
1912. Support of the suffragette movement and conscientious
objectors to war. Belief in communism and the influence of
the 1917 revolution in Russia.
By the time he was married, Shapurji had stopped working for Tata’s and was
on the staff of British Westinghouse Electrical and Manufacturing Company,
having, for the moment at least, given up the unequal struggle between
himself and Dorabji. He also joined Lincoln’s Inn and intended to become a
barrister, a project that had been in his mind ever since his arrival in England.
But at some point he gave up that idea, my mother said later, because he felt
that with his political views he would probably never be tolerated in the legal
profession.
As soon as he had arrived in England, he gave the National Liberal Club in
Whitehall, London as his address, and seemed to be following in the tradition
of his family in the political sphere. His Uncle Jamsetji had greatly admired
John Bright, Gladstone and Lord Morley, and there is little doubt that in this,
as in so many other important issues, Shapurji was profoundly influenced by
the grand old man of the family. But he obviously soon became disillusioned
with the Liberal Party, for they did not seem to him to be doing enough for the
working people.
[Editor’s note: Lord Morley, Secretary of State for India between 1905 and
1910, was a prominent Liberal. Shapurji apparently had a vigorous argument
with him in the NLC on the subject of India.]
For Shapurji it was not sufficient merely to bestow benefits upon the workers,
he believed that the power of government had to be transferred into their
hands; so, although he did not actually resign from the Liberals until 1910, he
54
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
became involved with the socialist movement almost as soon as he arrived in
England. Certainly from 1907 he took an active part in the Social Democratic
Federation (which later became the British Socialist Party) in East Finchley;
this was a vigorous and expanding branch and, politically, I think this was a
time of great optimism for him.
Also at East Finchley there was a mock parliament, and Shapurji was a zealous
frequenter of all their sessions. My mother went with him quite often; it was
there that she first heard Bernard Shaw speak and, of course, made his
acquaintance: she never missed a production of Shaw’s plays, and my older
sister was called Candida in his honour.
Shapurji gave his active support to the suffragette movement from this time,
and knew Sylvia Pankhurst well; he joined in their demonstration that
marched to Hyde Park in 1908. He was also active in the India Reform Group.
No doubt his eloquence and sincerity were already being noticed in all these
organisations.
Sometime in 1907, Shapurji’s boon companion from his school and college
days, Kaikoo Mehta (eldest son of Sir Phirozeshah Mehta, who had been such
a friend of Jamsetji) came to work in the office of Tata in London. Kaikoo was
an affectionate friend to all the family, and was invariably in the house at, or
soon after, the birth of each one of us. We all loved him dearly, as he was much
more lighthearted than my father. It was with him that we romped and fooled
around when we were small, whereas my father was always somewhat stern
and aloof; and it was Kaikoo who played tennis and cricket with us as we grew
older. He was very handsome with a curling, waxed moustache and he was
always jolly and laughing. He was very fond of Mother and always said that
Father was lucky to have found her before he did! We always teased my
mother about this later on; but of course, it always remained a very proper,
decorous friendship which we all enjoyed.
Kaikoo had a period cottage in St John’s Wood which to all of us was like a
doll’s house, and we loved to visit him there. His arrival in London was a great
comfort and support to Shapurji at a time when he found himself cut off from
the family for the first time.
My grandmother, Jerbai Saklatvala, sailed to America that summer to visit her
sons, Phirozeshah and Beram. She died in New York on the 23rd November
1907, I think as a result of anaesthetic poisoning during a minor operation.
55
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Perhaps because her brother Jamsetji was buried in Brookwood, or perhaps it
was Shapurji’s wish, her body was sent to England and she was also interred in
the Parsi burial ground there, in a grave immediately in front of Jamsetji’s
mausoleum.
Shapurji was greatly saddened and depressed by her death, and he and Sehri
took a furnished cottage in Brookwood to be near his mother’s grave. My
eldest brother, Dorab, was born there. It was there, too, that the doctor
introduced a Scottish lady, Mrs Gray, to the household as a midwife and nurse.
Mrs Gray remained a close friend to all of us, and I was with her when she died
in her nineties. She attended at the birth of three of my mother’s five children.
(She could not be with her in Manchester because she had a husband and son
of her own to look after.)
Shapurji’s parents had both accepted Sehri as a welcome daughter-in-law; but
when she produced a son (alas, too late to make Grandma happy), Granddad
Saklatvala was overjoyed and declared of the new infant, “This is the Dorabji
Saklatvala of the future!” He showered my mother with gifts and sang her
praises and generally rejoiced at the birth. After this, Dorabji spent much of
his time in England, mostly in Manchester, where he was in business buying
and selling mill machinery; consequently, he saw a great deal of the older
children. It was probably one of the happiest periods in his life, after all the
dissensions within the family.
In the spring of 1909 Shapurji had to leave British Westinghouse. It seems
that they had engaged him in the hope of doing business with Tata’s through
his personal connections, not knowing, of course, that his personal relations
could well have the opposite effect! He joined a firm of consultant engineers in
Manchester and the family, now three in number, moved to Ashton-upon-
Mersey.
My sister Candida was born there on my mother’s twenty-first birthday, 1909.
Kaikoo Mehta came to stay to join in the family jollifications. In those days, a
mother was not allowed any solid food for days after the birth and was kept
strictly in bed for a couple of weeks. Father, terrified of anything going wrong,
insisted on obeying the doctor’s orders; but Kaikoo used to sneak bread and
butter and cups of tea upstairs for Sehri, who was fit as a flea and ravenously
hungry.
In Manchester, Shapurji joined the Clarion Club; he attended their weekly
56
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
meetings with unfailing regularity and spoke there on many occasions. Bipin
Chandra Pal, a great Indian orator and fighter for Indian freedom, also
addressed meetings there. He was, of course, already acquainted with my
father, and in this period they saw much of one another. My parents shared
their house with another Indian couple, Mr and Mrs Chaman Lai, who also
had young children. This meant that Sehri was able to accompany Shapur on
many of his political meetings, which she greatly enjoyed, and no doubt she
learned a good deal from listening to and meeting the many political figures
who participated in them. While she, like her father, was always a Liberal, she
nevertheless always gave her husband her wholehearted support in all his
political activities, even when his politics were moving at a swifter pace than
those of the Liberal Party.
In the early nineteen hundreds there was an eccentric English socialist called
Arthur Field, who devoted much of his time to matters oriental, particularly
the Arab cause. He was a frequent and vociferous visitor to our house and was
very much a family friend. Field said of this period:
“Having come in contact with Manchester Labour Organisations
including the Clarion Movement, from 1909 we may suppose that
[Saklatvala] was trying to influence them, as he had tried to influence
the Liberals previously, to take up the matter of organising the workers
of India and voicing their claims to justice in the English Labour Circles.
In 1911, he addressed to leading men of the Trades Union Congress and
the Labour Representation Committee a document outlining the desired
activity. He told me the response was disappointing and disillusioning.”
It seems he was not the only socialist to be critical of the labour movement.
When George Bernard Shaw attended the Labour Party Conference in 1909,
he disapproved of the members singing at such an event; when they burst into
Auld Lang Syne at the end, he voiced his disgust thus: “When Moses received
the Tablets of the Law, he did not sing ‘For he’s a jolly good fellow’ by way of
acknowledgment! ”
Shapurji also attended regularly the sessions of the County Forum held in
Cromford Court, Manchester. There he was known as a very earnest and
considerable debater with pronounced socialist ideas. One of the members
wrote of this time: “I remember his opening a debate and bringing his wife
with him. It created some little interest, as unusual things and persons always
57
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
do. The debate went well and everyone was congratulatory, even his
opponents.”
During his period in Manchester Saklatvala joined the Independent Labour
Party. He frequently saw J.R. Clynes and also met Ramsay MacDonald. While
he realised that MacDonald was an astute and educated man, he never felt he
was the right person for the leadership of the labour movement; this first
impression was confirmed in later years when he was a member of parliament.
Saklatvala favoured Clynes rather than MacDonald for the leadership of the
Labour Party in 1911, but MacDonald won the day by quite a slender majority.
How different might have been the history of the Labour Party had Clynes
instead of MacDonald become Prime Minister.
[Editor’s note: At that the time the Independent Labour Party was the means
for individuals to became members of the Labour Party, which itself was a
federal organisation of trade unions and societies].
For much of his life in England, Shapurji came under Scotland Yard
surveillance, but unfortunately I cannot have sight of his dossier until seventy
years after his death— by which time I shall be beyond reading it. I am
therefore unable to state precisely when this surveillance began. But a letter
from one of the Party members, with whom my father stayed in Glasgow, said
that detectives were at Shapurji’s heels within a very short time of his arrival
in England; though there is no evidence of any activities in India or in the very
early months in England that would warrant such suspicion by the authorities.
But certainly, very early in his political involvement he was followed by a
detective; in a way, it flattered him and gave him importance; he certainly
never seemed to resent it.
Once, when it was pouring with rain and he went into a restaurant for lunch,
he went out and invited the detective to come inside out of the rain; he said he
knew he was there and that he was only doing his job, so why get wet? He
seems, anyway, always to have proclaimed his political beliefs as loudly and as
widely as he knew how, and there was certainly nothing clandestine about his
activities; it seems, therefore, to have been something of a waste of money to
have him so meticulously scrutinised. Once, when he was to address a meeting
in a part of London unfamiliar to him, he had forgotten the address of the hall;
he went into the local police station and asked them if they could tell him
where Saklatvala was scheduled to speak that night, and they at once told him!
58
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
This no doubt appealed to his sense of humour, for he related it as a joke
during the meeting when he got there.
Some time in 1911, thanks largely to the intervention of his cousin Ratanji,
arrangements were being made for him to rejoin Tata’s in India. But his father
wrote to him and warned him that he was likely to be arrested if he returned
home. So it seems that he was already regarded by the British government as a
threat to their continuing dominance over India; for at that time, the thought
of freeing India from the tyranny of British rule was considered to be
dangerous sedition. Now, of course, no one, even to the right of the Tory Party,
would consider it right or desirable to resume the roles of Empire builders and
subjugate other countries. So Father’s philosophy, condemned as
revolutionary and a threat to peace and stability, was merely ahead of his
generation. It took thirty years for British politicians to catch up with him.
Like all men who promote good ideas too early, he paid the price of their
backwardness and intolerance; and, alas, he did not live long enough to be
able to say, “I told you so!”
However, in May 1912, when the opportunity finally came for him to go back
to India, he and all the family went to Bombay, fully intending to settle there.
He insisted on chancing arrest and said he would not give in to intimidation.
He took no active part in politics while he was India then, as far as I know, but
at the end of about a year, he was again sent back to England, presumably by
Dorabji as head of the firm. (See also Chapter 6).
By the time they got back to London from India in 1913, his cousin Ratan had
purchased a palatial residence in Twickenham called York House. It is at
present the town hall. It was surrounded by beautiful gardens, which are now
a public park. Ratan built an indoor swimming pool and lived there in
considerable style and luxury. Ratan and Shapur had always been good friends
and were as affectionate as brothers, and it was to York House that the family
repaired on their return to England.
59
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Photo: York House, Twickenham
Both Ratanji and Dorabji had been knighted by this time and were in the
social whirl of London life, which Shapurji watched with some amusement
from the sidelines. At this time, he worked as personal assistant to Ratanji and
remained in this position until Ratan’s death in 1918, working mostly at York
House, but also in the offices of Tata Ltd in London.
During this period, Shapurji was content to be once again within the fold of his
family, and enjoyed the close links with his cousin. Ratanji had no children of
his own and made a big fuss of Shapur’s increasing brood. He often
encouraged them to entertain him with songs and recitations, and they
enjoyed playing in the spacious gardens of York House; especially the
Japanese garden, with its miniature trees and slender bridge over a little
stream.
Shapurji found a suitable house at 51 Lebanon Park, close to York House, and
the family took up residence there late in 1913. My brother Kaikoo (named
after Kaikoo Mehta, of course) and I were both born there in 1915 and 1919
respectively. Mrs Gray presided at both births. I might mention here that my
father was before his time in many things, and he apparently wanted to be
present when Kaikoo was born. Mrs Gray was scandalised at such a
proposition and threatened to walk out and abandon her patient when the
birth was imminent if Father persisted in remaining in the bedroom. This was
one occasion when my father had, perforce, to yield— and to a woman, too!
Nurse won the day, and he was not allowed to witness the birth as he had so
wished to do.
In early 1914 my father went alone on a short visit to India, returning in April.
60
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Mother went to Marseilles to meet him, and they had a week together in Paris.
Father bought Mummy the latest thing in hobble skirts from a fashionable
shop in Paris and she felt she was being outrageously daring wearing it in the
demure streets of Twickenham. I have a picture of them taken on the Eiffel
Tower during that visit; they obviously had enormous fun together that week,
alone and far from all cares, domestic and political. Although the Great War
was so near, no one seemed to be much aware of the impending sorrows.
Photo: 51 Lebanon Park, Twickenham
On his return to Twickenham, Shapurji added the conscientious objectors to
his political causes, and groups of them in Twickenham used to meet in each
others’ houses. He continued his association with the suffragette movement,
and also attended the meetings of the Independent Labour Party at this time,
having joined the ILP in Manchester in 1909. He also went to Fabian Society
meetings.
Herbert Bryan, a correspondent for the Daily Herald, remembered that he first
saw ‘Sak’ at the City of London branch of the ILP in about 1915 in Prince
Henry Room, Fleet Street. He recalls:
“On that occasion Sak was not one of the speakers, but he spoke in the
discussion from the back of the hall. I did not know who he was then,
but I remember being impressed by his striking and original way of
speaking... [He] soon became active in the City branch, both in branch
and public meetings. Then his reputation began to spread throughout
the London movement and afterwards, throughout the country, so that
he soon began to receive many requests to fulfil speaking engagements
from London and provincial branches.”
Quite late in the War Shapurji did receive call-up papers, but the authorities
61
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
must have had second thoughts, suspecting that he might be more trouble
than he was worth, because I think it was withdrawn. I have not verified this,
but that is the impression I had from my mother; but she was talking to me
some fifty years after the event. Certainly he never enlisted and, as far as I
know, never appeared before any tribunal.
The 1917 Revolution in Russia had a profound effect and influence on
Shapurji’s political outlook. He saw the predominantly peasant population of
Russia as being similar to the Indian population, and became convinced that
the solution that the USSR had found to combat the poverty and illiteracy of
her masses could be effective in India also. He became totally and irrevocably
convinced that communism was the only system that could relieve the
sufferings and injustices of the poor in all countries. It might deprive a very
few of the population from expressing intellectual convictions, but at least it
would ensure that the other downtrodden numberless masses would be fed,
housed and educated, and would have a voice in the government of the land.
Saklatvala visited the USSR in 1923, in 1927 and again in 1934, when he
toured and lectured extensively, giving his attention particularly to Samarkand
and the Eastern areas that had, he felt, perhaps the greatest affinity with India,
and he remained steadfast in his belief in communism. Once, when he was
addressing a meeting of the International Club of Glasgow University, he
thrilled his audience with an impassioned lecture on how the subjected races
of Soviet Asia had freed themselves, and on the way home, he explained to his
host how he had made up his mind never to admit even the tiniest criticisms of
the Soviet Union because that, for him, “was like a sin against the Holy
Ghost!”
Many enemies of communism are of the view that those who embrace it are
necessarily unpatriotic to Great Britain. This is not so. Father was convinced
that communism would lead to the happiness of all people and nations. He
wished all nations well. To love one’s country does not necessarily entail
setting it above other countries; bringing happiness to all peoples does not
diminish the well-being one brings to one’s own. To love humanity in toto
does not mean that one loves one country less than another.
But if the people of each land are encouraged by a false sense of patriotism to
think that their particular country must be stronger and more dominant than
all the others, we are left with an arms race, and often with an armed contest,
62
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
to prove the supremacy of each over the other. Sabre-rattling is really not a
manifestation of love of one’s country. Patriotism not only entails feeling love
for members of the government and the upper crust, one has to love the
workers and unemployed too, for they are all equally members of their country
and society.
Shapurji Saklatvala assuredly loved and worked tirelessly for the working
people of Britain as he worked strenuously and unceasingly for the good of
working people everywhere. So, lest anyone should think that Father did not
love England, let me say at once that they are wrong. He once said that India
was his mother-country, but that England was the mother-country of his
children.
Certainly he had a devotion to England, but he also loved all men and women
in other lands. He firmly believed in the universality of man and that no man
or groups of men should build their own happiness on the unhappiness and
suffering of others. A capitalist economy that depends for its survival on
having millions of unemployed could not, in his view, be considered moral or
desirable. His patriotism embraced loyalty to the working men and women of
Britain; indeed, he fought harder than most for the miners of Britain, and
went to prison in 1926 to serve their cause. He worked all his life to better the
lot of people everywhere.
After all, my Marsh grandparents loved all twelve of their children, my own
parents loved all five of us; none of them would have wanted to better one
child at the expense of the others. But loving many does not diminish the
devotion to any one; it rather enhances and increases it. So with the love of
countries. The human heart is well stocked with love and has enough to
distribute to people everywhere in the world.
Saklatvala became totally absorbed in the various political movements to
which he subscribed and spent hardly any weekends at home. He travelled all
over Britain addressing meetings, and inspired great affection and devoted
loyalty from working people all over the country. The fact that he came from
India does not appear to have bothered or upset anyone. In fact there was one
occasion during his second General Election campaign when the audience
rallied to his defence at a public meeting.
His opponent in that election was H.C. Hogbin, a National Liberal; there were
rowdy demonstrations at Hogbin’s meetings by people claimed to be followers
63
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
of Comrade Saklatvala. In the end, Hogbin said he would not address any
more meetings. Father published a notice for distribution calling on local
people to give all politicians a fair hearing. Copies were sent to Hogbin, for
distribution at his meetings.
One Captain Godfrey, representing Hogbin, addressed a public meeting,
sharing the platform with Saklatvala and, after referring to ‘Sak’s’ “splendid
sportsmanship,” added, “but I have an instinctive preference for an
Englishman.” This remark brought a torrent of abuse and indignation from
the audience. A newspaper of the day reported that men and women rose to
their feet and shouted protests. “You’re asking for it!”, “Shame!”, and “How
about Lady Astor?”, were some of the remarks distinguishable through the
din, which continued until Saklatvala himself intervened. Godfrey was forced
to say that “if Mr Saklatvala thinks he has been insulted, I withdraw.” It is
interesting to note that the ordinary rank and file members of that audience
would not stand for any derogatory allusion to the fact that Father was an
Indian. How sadly different things sometimes are today.
In those days, of course, there were few Indians living here and most of them
were doctors or lawyers or students or well-to-do business men. So the local
United Kingdom populace did not then, as now, feel threatened by Indians;
they were not then in competition for jobs and houses.
I have certainly never heard of any antagonism being expressed by working
men or women due to Father being a non-European. He was an outstanding
orator and always had complete control of his audiences. There were never
any incidents of unruly violence or disorder in his meetings. He dealt with
hecklers as he dealt with any political situation, with humour and logic. People
cut his name down to more manageable and pronounceable size and he was
universally and affectionately known as ‘Sak.’
Shapurji was of only average height, with a neat, trim figure, vigorous in his
speech and general deportment. He had dark, wavy hair, warm, shining hazel
eyes that were most expressive of his earnestness, his anger or his twinkling
and mischievous humour. Everyone who knew him was impressed by his
kindliness, his warmth, his sincerity. His compassion was personal even when
he was speaking of poverty or sickness or deprivation on a wide scale, and
people never became mere statistical numbers for him; he felt for the
thousands as keenly as he would feel for the individual next door.
64
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
As a speaker, he always drew the crowds, and his public meetings were usually
full to overflowing. But, at the same time, no group was too small for him to
address, and he would willingly go to talk informally to little groups of
students or trade union members.
No one now would say Shapurji was not robust— indeed, he seemed to have
limitless energy, often travelling through the night and addressing two and
three meetings in the day. His stay in Matlock, one way and another, had
certainly made a new man of him! He was not only a fiery advocate of
socialism, he was also a walking advertisement for the healing springs of
Derbyshire!
65
CHAPTER 6
The Mind is its Own Place
Family life. The author’s childhood memories.
The mind is its own place, and in itself
Can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven.
John Milton, Paradise Lost
Surely no braver man has ever existed than that primitive ancestor of ours
who first dared to climb on to a fallen tree and drift on the waters of a flowing
river. He must have been the first animal to move on anything but its own
limbs; all mammals propelled on their own feet, all birds on their own wings
and all fish on their own fins and tails. He alone, that courageous, pioneering
man, used an outside agent, a log of wood... “One small step for a man; one
giant leap for mankind.” Other innovative men have followed, and will yet
follow, his heroic example. The log has led to all kinds of craft, from canoes to
the Queen Mary, and the giant oil tankers and submarines; man’s skill at
riding on horseback led him to attach a cart to the beast and later he
discovered motor cars, steam trains, electric trains, aeroplanes and, most
recently of all, spacecraft that have whisked men to the moon, making yet
another small step, another giant leap.
But when all our wondering hero-worship and applause have died down, we
have to recognise that the most magical mode of travel is still on that
superlative vessel, the human mind; it travels not only in space but also in
time; it cannot be high-jacked or crashed or shot down, and it knows no limits.
Occasionally, it is true, a mind may go off the rails or have its big-end blow,
but such catastrophes usually result in even wilder flights of fancy than before.
No, as a means of happy wandering, the human mind remains supreme.
Thus it is with a great sense of liberation and relief that I attack this next
chapter, for it will deal with my own memory, unfettered by research into facts
and figures; for I intend now to give you some impression of Shapurji as a
father and a family man. He and Sehri had five children, three sons and two
daughters, of whom I am the youngest and, alas, the only lonely survivor; and,
66
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
no doubt, each of these five minds would have carried its owner on a different
journey and would have shown Father in different lights. But here is my
version of my father, for better or worse. I shall not only relate my direct
memories, but also incidents and impressions passed on to me in later life by
my mother. For Father was already in his middle forties when I was born, so
that I remember him only as a comparatively older man; and I was only
sixteen when he died, aged sixty-one. Whereas I shared my life with my
mother until I was fifty-eight and she was eighty-eight, and I depend greatly
on her recollections for my knowledge of Father.
Like his Uncle Jamsetji, Shapurji was a creative dreamer and idealist; he was
not, however, endowed with the same measure of pragmatism as that
industrious, industrial magnate. He shared with his uncle an unquestioning
and unquestioned determination to have his own way in all matters both
public and private, which was seen as strength by his admirers and as
obstinacy by those less sympathetic to him.
Shapurji had an impish, ebullient yet quiet sense of fun and humour, and
often used jocularity to prick the bubbles of pride or false dignity in others.
Wide reading and powers of observation, together with a prodigious memory
and a facility with figures bestowed upon him an encyclopaedic knowledge,
which enabled him to make long political speeches, laden with accurate
statistics, ex tempore and without reference to written notes.
He was affectionate, loving and sympathetic, with an understanding of and a
deep concern for the problems and sufferings of others; and when he was
dealing with human deprivation on a massive scale and talking in terms of
millions, he always saw their collective misery as the plight of individuals;
people remained people and were never diminished by their numbers into
mere statistics.
He loved the beauties both of nature and of the arts, and was enriched by his
enjoyment of both. He always stressed the need for honesty and honourable
conduct in private as well as in public life. He was a deeply religious man while
not subscribing to the tenets or doctrines of any one religion; but he tried
always to steer a course of good against evil. His religious ardour finally found
expression in communism, which became his fervent belief as a vehicle for the
ultimate good of all mankind.
He believed in the universality of man, and that no one man or group of men
67
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
or a nation should seek to improve their own lot to the detriment of other men
and other nations; hence his defiant and progressive fight against all forms of
imperialism. This was, I think, the guiding force behind all his political
thinking, and the mainspring of all his endeavours.
He does not appear to have engaged in any physically active recreations. In
one edition of ‘Who’s Who’ he gives “playing chess and silence” as his hobbies.
He was a contemplative man, and certainly there was no natural physical
violence in him.
He was always lucidly logical and was able to touch upon the centre and
fundamentals of even the most complicated issues of any debate. His
transparent sincerity and his sacrifice have never been questioned, even by
those who were opposed to everything he stood for, and his unblemished
integrity gained the respect and admiration of both followers and opponents.
I think the only man who could have been regarded as an enemy, and one who
was always personally antagonistic towards him, was his cousin, Dorabji Tata;
this feeling of animosity was engendered during their boyhood, more by
jealousy due to Jamsetji’s loving disposition and admiration for Shapurji, than
by any particular trait in Shapurji’s own character. Jealousy is such a self-
destructive emotion, that, as I found out more and more of the bitter enmity
that Dorabji displayed towards my father, I could not but help feeling sorry for
him; for although he did much to damage my father’s career as a businessman,
I am convinced that he made himself more miserable than he made Father. In
many ways, we are all indebted to him, for had Shapurji flourished in the
family business, his political career might never have been fulfilled; and, so far
as I personally am concerned, he may well never have met my mother, and
where would I be then? In the void, I suppose, in the abyss, and without a
mind to travel on.
Because our surname is a distinctive one, even in India, all through my life I
have always been asked if I am related to Saklatvala the MP. And I have found
nothing but admiration for him as a speaker and as a man, even among those
who had no sympathy whatever with his political ideals. On one occasion
when he was having a ding-dong with the then Home Secretary in the House
of Commons, the Speaker thanked him for his unfailing courtesy in debate.
While he was always emphatic and outspoken in political exchanges, he never
wittingly gave anyone personal offence.
68
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Alas, Shapurji was not always quite so delicate in his dealings within the
family! He was generally somewhat stern and aloof towards his children, but
we all were aware of his warmth and affection; his strictness was itself a
measure of his concern. He was, in fact, very fond and proud of all of us. The
baby of the family always sat next to him at meal-times, and it was he who fed
us and taught us how to feed ourselves in a mannerly way. He frequently took
my eldest brother Dorab to the office with him, from when he was only about
eighteen months old. He often took me with him on his travels when he was
addressing meetings up and down the country, from when I was only about
three. He even helped Mummy to cut out the clothes she made for us all; he
was, in fact, much more personally involved with our day-to-day upbringing
than most men of his generation.
The first baby was born in Brookwood because Daddy’s mother was buried
there and he wanted to be near her grave. (This attitude towards the dead
changed completely when he was an older man. Indeed, on the very day that
he died, he had been arguing with an Indian friend and journalist in favour of
cremation, and had said to him, “Well, I hope when I die they will put me in
the dustbin along with all the other rubbish.” But in 1907 and 1908 he was
more sentimental on the subject).
He must have been terribly excited to have a son, and when a neighbour asked
him what the baby was, he mischievously told her it was twins! And she
canvassed the news up and down the whole street, so that there was a great
wave of sympathy for the fragile young wife. When Daddy finally admitted that
it was just one baby boy, they were all so delighted that they forgave his
teasing.
When Dorab was still only an infant, the family moved to a cottage in the Vale
of Health in Hampstead some time towards the end of 1908. There, their
neighbours were an elderly couple, Mr and Mrs Marriott, who also hailed from
the north of England. They replaced to some extent my mother’s parents,
whom she sorely missed, and they were a great support and guide for her as a
young mother; she was always glad of the older woman’s advice, and they
remained life-long friends.
After about a year, when Father lost his job with British Westinghouse, the
family moved to Barker’s Lane in Sale, Cheshire. On the 10th of September
1909, on my mother’s twenty-first birthday, their second baby was born.
69
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Candy became the only one of us who ever openly defied Daddy, and she was
as determined as he was; she always spoke with great authority, and it never
occurred to me to question her any more than I would have questioned my
father. She was, of course, ten years older than I was, which helped her in the
sibling hierarchy. But more than any of us she inherited Father’s authoritas.
When Candy was a few months old, Daddy wanted to concentrate on his legal
studies, and so Sehri set out to visit America without him. He also wanted his
two brothers who had settled in America, Phirozeshah and Beram, to meet
Sehri and the two babies; he was proud of all of them and always enjoyed
showing them off. It was agreed that the naming of the new baby girl should
be left to the choice of Shapurji’s brothers; meanwhile they had been to see
Shaw’s ‘Candida’ and Mummy playfully called the baby Candida.
Photo: Barker’s Lane, Sale
When she arrived in the US, she told the immigration officer that she had
come to stay with her brother-in-law. Because he was not a blood relation she
was told she would be sent to Ellis Island. She had never heard of it and did
not understand what was happening. Then Phirozeshah came on board and
said he was her brother— because in the family no distinction was made
between brother and brother-in-law. This made the authorities even more
suspicious, and it was only after a stormy altercation between Phirozeshah and
the immigration authorities that Sehri and her two babies were allowed to
land. The imperturbable young mum took it all calmly in her stride.
70
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
She got on well with the two brothers and also with Phirozeshah’s secretary,
Mae, whom he married some years later. There was a musical running in New
York at the time called ‘The Candy Kid,’ so the name Candida was cut down to
Candy and her name was formally decided upon. After a few months the
family was re-united in England. It was from Kaikoo Mehta, and not from
Father direct, that my mother learned that Shapurji had not taken his legal
exams as planned. So far as I know, the legal career was never spoken of again.
I think that it was at this juncture that they moved to 93 Great Clowes Street,
Broughton, Salford, for it was there that baby number three was born; another
son, named Beram after Father’s youngest brother. Beram the elder was a
metallurgist in the USA and was making a name for himself there; he was
undoubtedly the brains of his generation. My brother, his namesake, proved to
be the brains of his generation also. He became a successful writer and had
pictures hung in the Institute of British Artists, as well as being a successful
businessman, making his career in the family firm, chiefly in the Tata Iron and
Steel Company which Father had done so much to found.
Photo: Great Clowes Street, Salford
Beram was a colourful, imaginative, tender-hearted boy and man, very family-
minded and always at hand to help in any crisis or distress. He was always a
great spinner of tales, and from when he was only three years old, Daddy
would stand him up in the drawing-room to entertain guests with stories of his
own creation. He apparently once held everyone enthralled and helpless with
laughter by relating a saga about a “chocodile” that bit a lady’s bottom; this
was not a word currently in vogue in the drawing-rooms of the day. My mother
was very pregnant at the time and her laughter led to her having to escape in
71
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
haste to the bathroom to avoid embarrassment.
Candy also did her share of entertaining, but she was content to recite verses
that she had learnt, rather than to invent stories of her own. The two younger
children were always close friends and allies, and rather ganged up against
Dorab the oldest, who was of a much shyer and more timid disposition.
Father’s great preoccupation with honesty made him seem all too often to be
an intimidating parent. When Dorab was about six, he came home from school
one day with a little cork from a bottle in his pocket. When Father was
undressing him at night, he asked him where the cork had come from; Dorab,
in all innocence, said it had come from the school laboratory. If he had stolen
the crown jewels, Daddy could not have been more angry. He explained that
the cork did not belong to him but to the school and that it was, therefore,
stealing to remove it from the school. The next morning being Saturday,
Daddy trotted the poor little shame-faced boy to the private home of the
headmaster, told him that Dorab had stolen the cork, that he had become a
thief and that he had come to apologise and to return the property to the
owner.
Shortly afterwards, Candy came home and Daddy found a piece of chalk in her
pocket. He stared at her sternly and demanded to know where the chalk had
come from. “Oh,” she said, with feigned surprise, “it must have fallen into my
pocket by mistake!” She got away with it; she got away with most things!
When she was only a toddler, she would often loiter by shop windows when
my parents were taking their two small children for a walk. Daddy would say,
“Just walk out of sight round the corner and she’ll soon follow.” But she never
did follow, and it would end with Dorab in tears, wailing that they would lose
Candy; the stubbornly independent little girl did not even notice that the
family had disappeared.
7 2
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Photo: Shapurji and Sehri Saklatvala
Once, when they were living temporarily with Ratan Tata in York House,
Father found the children talking after they had been put to bed; to punish
them, he took Candy on to the landing and laid her down on cushions there; as
usual, he mistakenly thought that she would beg to be taken back to bed; as
usual she did not. “Oh, thank you, Daddy,” she said, “I like it here because the
light will be on all night, won’t it?” Defeated, Daddy went downstairs and
appealed to my mother to go and put the unrepentant rebel back to bed, as
though it were a conspiracy between them both against Papa. So long as she
was convinced that she was putting one over her stern parent, Candy was
content!
Beram was only eight months old when the family went to India in 1912,
expecting to settle there. Father was a poor sailor and was not much use to
Mother on the voyage. Mercifully, she always enjoyed sea travel and remained
her usual robust and competent self, looking after the three small children and
a sea-sick husband as to the manner born. Sehri always delighted in her
brood; I used to tease her and say that motherhood was a disease with her. She
certainly never felt, as many modern mothers appear to do, that to be with her
children was boring. She treated them as an artist would treat his creations;
they were her diversion, her delight, her life’s work. When she was in her late
eighties, shortly before she died, she once said to me that her greatest
happiness (among many) had been when she held her first baby in her arms;
indeed, I have a photograph of her, holding her tiny prize triumphantly above
her head, like a goddess of victory. So she coped with the journey, adequately
and joyfully.
Before they arrived in Bombay, Father told Mother of a dream he had had. In
73
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
his dream he had warned his beloved Sehri that it was the custom among
Parsis to give money as gifts; it was likely, therefore, that the family would give
money to her, and he did not want her to feel either insulted or embarrassed
by this. Sehri, even in Father’s dreams, acted with unfailing candour. “Why
should I be insulted?” she had asked, “I love people to give me anything!”
Wide awake, Sehri assured him that his dream expressed her waking feelings
exactly. It was true— any gift to Sehri was an act of love, and love was her
favourite currency, no matter what container it arrived in. So, with the recital
of a dream, Shapurji tactfully tested Sehri’s reaction to any possible future
present giving— I wonder if he really did dream it all? Anyway, they both
enjoyed the joke, and any anxiety Father might have felt evaporated in their
early morning laughter.
1912 was a year of triumph for the Tata Iron and Steel Company; in January of
that year, during the visit to India of the King, Lord Crewe, then Secretary of
State for India, visited the steel works at Sakchi (which was later renamed
Jamshedpur, in honour of the founder) and saw part of the operation of
production. But, although Father had contributed in large measure to the
foundations of the company, he was not given any position in TISCO by
Dorabji. Instead, he was appointed to investigate irregularities that were
suspected in the running of the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel, another Tata concern
in Bombay.
Shapurji must have been hurt by this slight, but never complained about it to
anyone; unless, perhaps, he confided in his father with whom the family was
staying in Bombay. It says much for Father’s family allegiance, love and loyalty
that, throughout the legal battles and antagonisms with Dorabji, my father
would never say a word against the family in any social context. He remained
loyal, loving and proud, and would never countenance any outsider to voice
any criticism of his cousins without his challenging it; of course, politically and
with his solicitor and Counsel, it was a different matter.
But on the whole, despite the disappointments of his work and future
prospects with the firm, this was one of the happiest periods in Shapurji’s life.
He had returned to his beloved India, bringing with him the most cherished
prize of his life, his adored Sehri. To make his happiness complete, she was not
only accepted by his family, but was welcomed affectionately as a daughter
and a sister; and, most important of all from Shapurji’s point of view, his wife
74
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
and his sister became close friends and always remained so.
One story that he related to Mother of his work in the hotel always amused
her; he went down to the kitchens one afternoon and found one of the chefs
asleep on the table with his head pillowed on a loaf of bread. One can only give
the unnamed fellow the benefit of the doubt and hope it was a stale one,
destined only for the birds! Another memory of which I never tired was the
story of how Shapurji had presented Sehri with a peacock and its hen to adorn
the garden; but the ill-fated peahen fell into a barrel of tar and died; the
devoted peacock died three days later of starvation and, presumably, a broken
heart. Mother seemed to enjoy telling me this sad tale; perhaps that devoted
pair of splendid birds became a symbol of the devotion of the giver and
receiver of this ornithological gift of love.
Father upset Granddad by telling the servants that he did not require them to
take their shoes off in his or his family’s presence; Granddad complained
bitterly to Mummy, “He can do whatever he likes in his own house, but I will
not allow him to upset the routine of mine!” But all the servants assigned to
Shapurji continued to be allowed to wear shoes. Father was revolted at the
thought of anyone being expected to humiliate himself before another human
being in any way, however trivial. On the whole, servants were treated very
harshly in those days and Granddad was no exception. He expressed the
opinion that you had to hit them, kick them if need be, to get them to work
properly. But both my parents treated the servants as they treated all human
beings, with courtesy and respect; and they certainly responded by working
happily for them. It was a subject on which father and son never saw eye to
eye.
I have so far not mentioned that Shapurji also had a violent temper. This
found public expression in his passionate oratory, but at home it manifested
itself simply as bad temper. Very often it was matters outside the home that
were upsetting him, but some minor domestic incident could trigger off a
spate of shouting that frightened us all. Of course, like his Uncle Jamsetji
before him (whom in many characteristics he closely resembled), he not only
liked, but expected always to get, his own way; he therefore demanded
absolute obedience from us children. Most of us gave it to him
unquestioningly; my sister, however, shared this trait with him and always,
from babyhood, defied him. My eldest brother Dorab was five when they were
75
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
in Bombay; he was always, both as man and boy, very shy. Daddy told him to
thank Granddad by saying “Ha-ji,” but Dorab said his thank you in English.
This blew up into a major confrontation and ended with Father hitting the
little boy with a cane. My mother intervened and she became the target of his
shouting.
[Editor’s note: ‘Goodbye’ in Gujerati is actually ‘Aav-jo.’]
One of the servants went to the house of Ali Fui (Daddy’s sister) and related
the story to her, no doubt with dramatic embellishments. When Ali Fui saw
my mother afterwards, her sympathies were all with her English sister-in-law,
and she said that Shapurji should have married a Parsi girl who would not
have put up with such nonsense!
My mother somehow rode these storms, but they were terrifying episodes.
When Mother remonstrated with him after one of these outbursts, he said that
he only bothered to lose his temper with those he loved, namely, his mother,
his sister, his wife and his children; other people, he said, were not worth
expending his energy and passions on. Well, this was small comfort; although
I see what he meant. I myself am never very much moved by what strangers
and casual acquaintances say of me— it is only those I care for who have the
power to hurt me.
This bad temper was offset by an impish and ebullient sense of humour, which
was often evident in Shapurji’s House of Commons speeches. He stood very
much alone in that august body, being the only Indian, as well as the only
representative of the Communist Party, and his humour became a keen and
potent weapon of self defence when he was besieged on all sides, from right,
left and centre. That was the one place in which he almost never lost his
temper, but he was at all times courteous and correct, though often roguishly
taking the mickey out of his political opponents.
Dorab was made much of in India as the future head of the family. Granddad
had a grown-up Parsi suit made for him with the traditional hat, and he was
photographed in all his adult finery. I think both the boys were very much
spoilt by all of Daddy’s relations, his sister and brother and old Aunt as well as
by his father. I never heard much about the reaction to the little four-year-old
Candy. Perhaps the unusual surroundings finally daunted her, as nothing else
had done. Baby Beram succumbed to the heat and was so desperately ill that
Sehri was sent to Ootacamund by train with the three children. It was only a
76
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
long time afterwards that she was told that no one had expected the little baby
to survive the journey; but mercifully, he did, and in the cooler air of the hills
fully recovered.
Perhaps this near-loss of his infant son was in Shapurji’s mind when, years
later as an MP, he devoted much of his attention to the unacceptably high
infant mortality rate in British India; he complained of it again and again; as
always, while speaking of the deaths of thousands, he understood that each
individual death was a grief and a loss to each of the sorrowing parents. Babies
remained babies even in their thousands— they were never impersonal
statistics.
Sehri was never told how Shapurji’s employment with the firm in India came
to an end. One day he sent a messenger to the house and told her to start
preparing to return to England as they were to leave within a week. When he
came home that evening, he tried to persuade his father to sail back with
them. Finally, Granddad agreed. The next day, Sehri told Granddad that he
had better start making preparations for the journey, but Granddad said
quietly that he was not going. “But you told Shapur last night that you were
coming back to England with us.” “I only said that to keep Sapoo quiet— but I
am staying here,” the old man said. I have no knowledge of the exact date of
their return, but I have a photograph of Mummy and the three children with
Granddad’s sister, Bachubai Fui, taken in March 1913; they were in Bombay
for a year or so, and probably returned to England in May or June of 1913.
On their return to England the family moved into York House, Twickenham,
with Ratanji, as ever, a kind and affectionate friend to Shapurji and his family.
The Saklatvalas had a wing of the house to themselves, but Ratanji and
Navajbai spent a lot of time with the children. This period up to the time of
Ratan’s death in 1918 was a happy time for all of them, except, of course, for
Ratan’s increasing ill health. They remained for a few months in York House
before moving to Lebanon Park, just round the corner.
Early in 1914, Shapurji made a journey to Bombay on his own, returning in
April (when, as already related, he and Sehri met in France and enjoyed a brief
holiday together unencumbered by the children). This trip was probably made
on behalf of Ratan; I do not think that it was yet another attempt to persuade
Dorabji to take him back into the fold in India; his year in Bombay had finally
dispelled all hope of reconciliation in that direction, I think.
77
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Once back in England, Shapurji threw himself once more into the political
arena. He and Sehri settled down happily to their life near the river in
Twickenham, a stone’s throw away from Ratan’s York House.
Father had always said he wanted all his children to marry partners of
different nationalities— he envisaged fathering a tribe that would be truly
international and free from jingoism. Once, Mother had gone to visit her
parents and sisters in Manchester, and when she returned to Lebanon Park,
she found awaiting her a beautiful Chinese lacquered cabinet about six feet
high, as a surprise welcome-home present. “Where has this come from?” she
asked. “Oh,” said Shapur with his usual serious playfulness, “while you were
away, Candy’s future husband brought it as a gift from China.” This cabinet
adorned our home until 1972, when Mother and myself moved into a small
house; it was too big for the little rooms and, in any case, the lacquer was
beginning to show signs of wear. Needless to say, no Chinese husband ever
turned up for my sister, or for me either, come to that.
Photo: Saklatvala, 1922
Shapurji and Sehri went quite frequently to the Richmond Hippodrome and
the Chiswick Empire, sometimes on their own and sometimes with Kaikoo
Mehta and other friends. Their neighbours were a Mr and Mrs Mitchell, who
had boys about the same age as Dorab and Beram; parents and children all got
on well together; Sehri and Mrs Mitchell often went shopping together.
Apparently when they saw well-to-do elderly matrons trying on fine clothes
78
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
and fur coats, Mrs Mitchell would say, “You and I would look a lot nicer in that
than she does! The trouble is, by the time we can afford to buy things like that,
we’ll be as old and ugly as they are!”
When Mummy herself was elderly, she often used to quote Mrs Mitchell when
she bought anything new, and she laughed and saw the funny side of growing
old. Actually, she never lost her good looks, even though she lost her youth, of
course, like anyone else; but she maintained her finely chiselled countenance,
and perennially looked a good twenty years younger than she actually was.
Once when Mother was having tea with a somewhat elegant and conventional
neighbour, Beram had a rough and tumble with other boys in the street and
got a cut on his head; he was brought to the house of the spic and span
neighbour, bleeding and looking like a disreputable street urchin. He was laid
in the spare room bed, all frills and lace and satin cushions, in his muddy and
blood-stained clothes. He was accident prone and always in trouble and
disgrace as a small boy. But the incident did not sever the friendship between
the refined hostess and my mother.
Father was again somewhat ahead of his time in that he did not believe either
in baby-talk or in serving up fairy tales and illusions to the children. So one
winter’s afternoon, when Sehri and Shapurji were going up to town by train,
they took their eldest-born with them. Dorab, unused to being out after dark,
asked Father why there was only half a moon. Father, glad of the promising
scientific curiosity displayed, went into astronomic detail and the child
seemed satisfied. But when they emerged from the train at the end of their
journey, Dorab looked into the sky and said, “There’s the other half of the
moon all the time, Daddy!” So his hopes of producing a little Galileo were
dashed.
Shapurji joined the Independent Labour Party in Manchester in 1909. The
following year he resigned from the National Liberal Club. Now, soon after his
return from India and with Europe plunged into war, his political
involvements increased and he was less and less at home at weekends; for he
was already addressing and attending meetings of the various groups he
supported. Even when he was at home, much of the time he was entertaining
those who were sympathetic to his numerous causes.
Once when he was discussing the role of the conscientious objectors, he
addressed a little group of like-minded enthusiasts gathered in the house. He
79
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
said, “And when your children ask you what you did in the Great War, you will
be able to say you stood firm like men!” And the five-year-old Beram,
precocious as ever, said to Mummy, “Oh, no, he didn’t. He went out and
bought honey and chocolate for us, didn’t he?” This was because Father had
indeed bought a large barrel of honey and packets of chocolate as a stand-by
for the children, “Because,” he had said, “you never know, the war may last for
six months.” It says little for his foresight that he looked upon six months as a
possible long-term duration for a war that was to rage for four long years.
It seems to me in retrospect that he was surprisingly unworried by the conflict;
so much so that he and Sehri planned their fourth child. Up to then, they had
wanted a boy, followed by a girl, followed by a boy; and each time, their wishes
had been fulfilled. They both began to take their good fortune for granted and
the next baby was to be a girl and she was to be called Sehri, sentimentally,
after her mother. But in 1915, after a particularly prolonged and difficult
labour, they were presented with their third son; this one was called Kaikoo,
after Kaikoo Mehta. Kaikoo was a somewhat skinny little fellow, never very
strong, cursed with a quick-firing temper but, as time passed, with an equally
quick-firing wit. By the time he came on the scene, the sibling pattern was
already established— the eldest son, Dorab, told he must, as the eldest son, be
responsible for the good behaviour of the others, was consequently rather cut
off from their companionship; Candy and Beram were constantly together,
and I fear the puny little newcomer was condemned to loneliness. He was,
therefore, made a fuss of by Sehri, who always doted on him and, probably,
spoiled him.
It was about this time that Father was making a name for himself as a speaker
for the Independent Labour Party and was much in demand; consequently he
travelled a great deal up and down the country, addressing meetings and
carrying on propaganda for the party. He was less and less at home.
There were many visitors of a purely social character to the house, as well as
the politically involved ones. Kaikoo Mehta was with us almost every weekend,
Granddad Saklatvala was spending more and more time in England and often
stayed at Lebanon Park for long periods. There were several Indian couples
with children who joined in our family life, with picnics in Richmond Park and
outings on the river. Mrs Gray, the Scottish nurse first recruited in 1908 in
Brookwood, was much in evidence. Mother’s sisters took it in turns to come
80
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
and spend holidays with her, and Grandma and Granddad Marsh also came
periodically from Oldham.
There were visits to London zoo. The hard-working Sehri would be up at dawn
preparing sandwiches, boiled eggs and kebabs and off they would go, a whole
tribe of children and cousins and friends, for the journey across London.
Grandma Marsh, for all her poverty, liked to keep in fashion and spent much
time sewing and stitching to keep up with the times. Granddad would tease
her and say, “Eh, aye, Annie-Jane, tha’d best be out o’ this world than be out o’
fashion!” And before one of the excursions to the zoo, she had busied herself
for a whole afternoon, titivating and trimming a hat, which sported, amid the
bows and ribbons, a sweeping ostrich feather. Alas, Grandma approached too
near to the monkey’s cage and a long arm stretched out through the wire
netting and grabbed the feather and would not let go; but the hat was held
firmly in place by a closely fitting veil. There was quite a scene until Granddad
stopped laughing long enough to rescue both Grandma and the hat— but the
feather fell in the battle.
In 1916, Mother’s father died. He was ill for some weeks, and Mummy went up
to Derbyshire where he was staying with her sister Annie. All his children were
devoted to him and their grief was profound as they stood round Harry’s bed
and he said goodbye to them all. “Tha’s all been good childer,” he said. Aunty
Annie, in tears, answered him, “You’ve been a good Dad!” “Aye,” he said,
thinking it over, “Aye, I think I ’ave.” In less than a year, Grandma was also to
lose her eldest child, Lily, who died giving birth. What sorrows people are
called on to endure. The baby lived and was adopted by the childless married
sister, Annie, always a close friend to Mummy, as they were next to one
another in age. The baby, called Lily after her dead mother, was to be a
constant visitor to our house, and she and I were as close as sisters as time
went on, and I am thankful to say that we remain in sisterly friendship even
now.
In 1918, death was to visit the family yet again, taking this time Father’s
cousin, Ratan. In Frank Harris’s biography of Great-Uncle Jamsetji, it is said
that the old man hastened his own death by his one indulgence, a love of good
food. His son, Ratan, perhaps damaged his own health also, but by other
equally compelling appetites. These are warm-hearted failings and it seems to
me hard that they should be punishable by death. I look upon them as
81
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
weaknesses that go with warmth and compassion and a loving disposition; I
contend that those who suffer from them are far better people than the cold or
stony-hearted who are often full of puritanical righteousness. So in 1918,
Daddy’s closest cousin died in Cornwall, and Shapurji’s links with the family
became even more tenuous and even more dependent on the toleration, if not
exactly the goodwill, of Dorabji.
Ratan’s death was indeed a bitter blow to Shapurji; fortunately his widow,
Aunty Navajbai, continued to visit us whenever she was in England, always
much loved by every one of us, my mother included Indeed, she was such a
favourite that when my middle brother Beram was a boy, he always said he
planned to marry her! She was daintily petite, having a pretty, small-featured
face with a mischievous mouth and merry eyes. She dressed most elegantly
with saris and blouses made from French fabrics; very chic, very graceful. To
her, Shapurji’s politics and high principles were something of a joke, and she
loved to provoke and tease him, usually through us.
When I was four, Daddy sent me to join my youngest brother to a convent
school. Since he had been taught by Jesuit Fathers, he had implicit faith in
them as teachers, and was convinced that nuns also, being unencumbered by
family and emotional entanglements, were able to give their undivided
attention to the children in their care. But he did not want to be reminded of
the accusation that he had once become a Catholic and he had stipulated that
we children were not to receive any religious teaching at the hands of the
nuns. But I loved the stories, the prayers and the hymns, and Aunty Navajbai
would sit me on her knee and have me recite for her my Hail Marys and the
Our Father, and she would watch my father’s consequent discomfiture with
obvious glee. I, of course, was too young and innocent to realise that anything
was amiss and merely basked in her adoration and praise.
At last, in 1918, with the war still dragging on, it was decided that another
attempt should be made to produce a baby Sehri. The still-lonely little Kaikoo
was told that he could expect a baby sister in June 1919. When, in March, the
clocks were put forward to summer time, he said, with a sigh that would have
been more fitting in an old man, that he wished they would put the clock on to
June so that he could play with the new baby. Mother was always touched by
this because she felt it showed a non-jealous and loving nature. But I see it as a
revelation of that poor little boy’s loneliness and isolation within the family. I
82
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
think it was still quite unusual for small children to be told all that much in
advance of an impending new arrival.
At last, on the 2nd of June 1919, I put in an appearance. Mummy’s youngest
sister Lottie was staying with us at the time and deeply offended my mother by
taking one look at me and giggling, saying, “Oh, what a funny little thing!
What a funny little thing!” Mummy, always convinced that the latest arrival
was the acme of perfection, never fully forgave her for this lapse into
tactlessness. My father spoiled me from the word go, and bored all the family
by constantly talking about me. This was not due to any particular virtue in me
but simply, I am sure, because I bore the same name as his beloved wife.
Granddad Saklatvala came down from Manchester to inspect me when I was
six weeks old. Apparently he was convinced that I was a re-incarnation of his
grandmother, whose name had been Jeevanbai; this second name was,
therefore, added to my certificate of birth in accordance with his wishes.
Granddad superstitiously always carried a photograph of me as an infant and
never signed any important letter or document without placing my picture in
front of him on his desk. Normally my father would have remonstrated with
him for such superstition, but he seems to have been pleased by this particular
manifestation of a credulity he would in other circumstances have condemned.
It so happened that Granddad was planning to visit his two sons in America
and he wrote to my parents from Manchester, asking them to have another
photograph taken of me since the one he had, through constant handling, was
very worn. He was told when the picture was taken and he was promised a
copy as soon as it arrived from the photographer. He therefore sent the old
photograph to Uncle Phirozeshah in New York. The next morning, while
packing his trunk, he had a heart attack and died. Daddy said that, had any
other disaster overtaken him, he would undoubtedly have ascribed it to his
having parted with my photograph.
In a letter addressed to my brother in 1937, a year after Father’s death, one Mr
Colin Cannie wrote and described how Daddy had stayed with his family in
Glasgow in 1935, and how he had been talking of matters occult and related
the story of Granddad’s death. Mr Cannie wrote:
“This aspect of his life you should bring out as these were genuine
experiences indeed, though he, of course, couldn’t or didn’t endeavour
to explain them. That may seem queer to those who accept the old type
83
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
of dialectic materialism, yet ‘Sak’ (as he insisted on our addressing him
as that and really I look on it as a very dear name to me) was not
prepared to scoff at it and dismiss it as baloney; I think he looked upon
it as something at present he was or we are unable to explain because of
certain gaps in our scientific knowledge. Anyway, his mind was not
prone to superstition and his analytical power was highly developed...”
Granddad Saklatvala had always doted on the boys in the family, but had left
Candy out in the cold. He would give the boys a half-crown and give nothing to
my sister; and once cruelly told her she was just a stone. No wonder, then, that
she disliked him. She was staying with friends in Belgium when he died and
they relayed what they thought should be the sad news to her. She used to tell
me years later (when we were very good friends and close companions) how
she felt that her hosts expected her to show some grief; so, although she felt
nothing except perhaps relief at his passing, she sat in front of a mirror, trying
desperately to make the tears fall— but none came!
It is equally unsurprising that when I made my appearance in her world,
fussed over by Daddy, doted on by the Grandfather who had despised her
girlhood in favour of the male progeny, that she felt hurt and angry and
frustrated by my arrival. She resented deeply being asked to take me out in the
pram and she and her friend used to see who could make me cry first on these
enforced perambulations. When we were grown up she used to relate these
episodes to me and we both laughed about them; mercifully, the resentment
passed with my childhood and, as adults, we were the best of friends. Thank
God she was of a forgiving disposition. But I do not think she ever felt the
same devoted affection for my father as I did and, indeed, still do. Perhaps she
wondered, as I have often done, why she was not called after my mother, as
the first-born daughter. Neither of us ever asked the question out loud and
therefore neither of us ever knew the answer.
In 1921 or 1922, when I was about two, Father bought their first house. Up to
then they had always lived in rented accommodation. 2 Saint Albans Villas,
Highgate Road, London NW5 (always known to us all as ‘Number Two’) was a
large Edwardian villa, having four storeys including a basement.
Because of our association with the Tatas, it was always assumed that we, too,
were wealthy; in fact, we were anything but. Father was still, at this time,
working in quite a modest capacity in the Tata office in London. Kaikoo Mehta
84
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
was also there and the two men remained staunch friends.
Kaikoo was unmarried but had a most elegant housekeeper called Mrs Milton;
she was a very aristocratic-looking lady who had been driven to earn her living
because a dissolute husband had abandoned her; her only son had been badly
gassed in the war and consequently was an invalid. She was a dignified,
methodical lady, with a flower-like complexion and a dignified aristocratic
face, surmounted by a high edifice of white, silky hair, cascading in waves from
a high crown to the nape of a long and graceful neck.
Mrs Milton always rose at about five o’clock and had most of the work finished
before anyone was about; she would have felt it ‘infra dig’ to be witnessed
performing menial household chores. More often than not she came with
Kaikoo Mehta on his weekend visits to us, and she and my mother were
intimate friends. From time to time, we children would spend a weekend with
her, always only one at a time. Father was a great believer in sending us to stay
with friends and relatives so that we learned how to conduct ourselves in the
company of others, away from parental guidance.
Photo: St Albans Villas, Highgate Road, London
Father had grand plans for the house in Highgate Road, but money was scant
and everything had to be done bit by bit. We were nearly five years with no
floor covering on the stairs, and my mother used to sweep and scrub the bare
boards of flight after flight of stairs. Indeed, she only managed to have them
covered when Daddy was safely housed in Wormwood Scrubs in the 1926
85
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
General Strike; she had saved all her birthday and Christmas present money
for years and drew it out of the Post Office to buy linoleum. Shapurji had walls
knocked down to make rooms bigger and he had other walls built to make
rooms smaller.
The garden was dug out in front of the basement so that the basement was
level with the garden. The coal cellar was transformed into a large entrance
hall, the steps leading up to the old front door were excavated away. What had
been a rambling old kitchen became our dining room, and a new kitchen was
built onto the back of the house. The old entrance hall on what had been the
ground floor, with a dividing wall demolished, enlarged the front room, which
housed a billiard table, bookcases full of books and Beram’s ‘museum’ of
fossils and stones that he had collected. This was always known as the
Children’s Room.
In the drawing room (behind the billiard room and overlooking the large back
garden), above the Adam marble fireplace, Shapurji erected a life-size statue of
Venus rising from sea-waves of plaster, her hair swirling in the sea breezes
hiding anything that might be deemed indelicate in a drawing-room of the
period. She, like many oil paintings of some beauty and worth, including a full
length portrait of a statuesque lady by Burne-Jones, came from York House
after Ratan’s death; we also had a full-sized reclining figure of Psyche with
Cupid at her feet, luxuriously bedded down amid her marble cushions on a
plinth in the back garden; another York House memento.
My father haunted auction sales, which was another trait he shared with my
sister. A job lot of marble bought in an auction lined what had been the
basement, the floors were of white and gray marble, the walls of pink. A
miniature marble Taj Mahal bought at the Wembley Empire Exhibition
adorned the marble mantelpiece, and a marble table top inlaid with colourful
mother-of-pearl was inset in one wall. Four oval plaques of white marble with
draped and dancing figures in relief were set in the hall and dining room walls.
All these alterations were done bit by bit, often standing half finished for
months on end while Father managed to accumulate the money to carry on.
But one room he did immediately on arrival. For the first few weeks of our
occupation of the house, the room that was to be my parent’s bedroom was
kept locked and Sehri was only allowed in on her birthday, when she was
presented with grand French Empire furniture, heavy mahogany emblazoned
86
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
with brass ornamentation. The walls were covered in wooden panels of shaded
cream, and a magnificent dressing table set of amethyst-coloured cut glass
shimmered on the dressing table; a plain cut glass toilet set lay resplendent on
the polished green marble of the flamboyant french empire washstand. It was
not for use; forming an L-shape off the main bedroom was a dressing room
housing a wash basin, a huge wardrobe for Father’s things and an exquisite
chest of drawers inlaid with a geometric design of different coloured woods. In
the large window, there was a shell-shaped sofa in black and gold, with deep
rose silk upholstery with classical designs woven in gold silk. The same fabric
had been used to cover the bed quilt and the chairs.
What a birthday present! And what a far cry from Foxholes cottage where Sally
had been born. Such was Sehri’s welcome to their new home.
Like his Uncle Jamsetji, Shapur wanted the benefit of all the best in modern
inventions. His was one of the first houses to be run entirely on electricity; our
heating (which we could ill afford and only switched on for visitors— who,
mercifully, were frequent!), our cooking, lighting and hot water system were
all electric. In those early days there were frequent calamities; on one occasion
when Mummy was entertaining a Parsi priest to dinner with other friends, the
cooker was going full blast to cook a four-course dinner, the heating was on
and the house was ablaze with lights, when the whole system, grossly over-
loaded, succumbed to a power failure. We were suddenly plunged into total
darkness, with a cooker full of half-cooked food and a swiftly cooling house.
But mercifully, in those days, repair men were always at the ready and were
soon at hand to rescue us.
So much then for Shapurji, the doting father and husband, happily settled at
last in a home of his own. Let us now take a look at ‘Sak’, the politician.
87
CHAPTER 7
Freedom for Me and Mine, Bondage
for Thee and Thine
Growing reputation as an orator. The International Socialist
Congress, 1912. Death ofKeir Hardie, 1915. The Easter Rising
in Dublin, 1916. Foundation of the Workers’ Welfare League
of India, 1917. Foundation of the Peoples’ Russian
Information Bureau, 1918. Work for Ramsay MacDonald in
the 1918 election. Delegate to the ILP conferences in 1918,
1919 and 1921. Association with the work of Sylvia
Pankhurst. The Second Congress of the Communist
International and Saklatvala’s subsequent break with the
ILP.
Of all my fears
It is loneliness that wears
The worst mask, with lips bitten and bleeding,
And eyes full of tears.
Ronald Duncan, This Way to the Tomb
It has taken two world wars and much complicated and arduous political
striving to achieve a little of what my father sought to accomplish. He was a
revolutionary and was consequently looked upon by the establishment as a
danger. In England, revolution has always been despised as something
conducted by a disorderly mob, usually in disorderly and shabby countries;
whereas war has always been considered noble and heroic and tragic-on-the-
grand-scale. But counting up the dead and measuring the suffering of two
world wars and the many human degradations that went on in between (many
of which, alas, continue even now), I cannot help but wonder if a revolution
might not perhaps have caused less agony in the long run. But we just have to
accept that revolution, as such, is totally abhorrent to the English.
The one revolution that took place here and which led to the transient
88
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Commonwealth of Cromwell has always been graced by the name of ‘civil
war’; this has given that particular revolutionary fracas a respectability
suitable to the English temperament. Revolutions take place in Russia and
South America, not in the neat suburban streets or even in the decaying inner
cities of orderly and respectable England. When troops of the despotic Tzar of
all the Russias fired on and killed hundreds of Russian workers in 1905 in
front of the Winter Palace, he did not even have to be forgiven, for it roused no
more than a flicker of anger here; but when a handful of Russian citizens killed
a handful of Russian royals, it was called murder and ruthless assassination,
and the Russian people, (and communism in toto) have never been, and never
will be, forgiven for it by the western (self-styled) democracies. Murder is
death inflicted by civilian hands, slaughter by the recognised national armies
of the world is called war and is not only considered acceptable but even
laudable; medals, knighthoods and Lordships are bestowed upon its more
ruthless and valiant campaigners.
So my father’s overt exoteric cry for the same freedom for his people that the
British took for granted for theirs, was termed ‘dangerous sedition’ and he,
who only offered friendship to all instead of merely to a few, was treated as the
peoples’ enemy and subjected to Scotland Yard scrutiny, to his meetings being
banned, (though they had at all times been peaceful and orderly), and finally,
and most cruelly, to his permanent exile from the country of his birth, without
trial, indeed, even without open accusation. Such was the much acclaimed
democratic freedom that was afforded to him.
I would like to explain that much of the recorded material available on
Father’s early life has been taken from letters written to my brother, Beram,
when it was his intention to write a biography, in 1937, a year after Father’s
death. One has to take account of the persons who wrote those letters, how
well they knew my father and whether they were friend or foe; was their
memory accurate, no matter what their intentions towards Father’s memorial
might have been? They cannot all be taken as gospel truth; even when facts
that are true are related, one has to beware of the interpretation of the
intentions behind the facts. Most of the distortions are benevolent and
unimportant.
As an instance of the tricks that memory plays on witnesses speaking long
after the event, I will relate the trivial and harmless recollection of one Mr
89
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Desai, a younger man who was a student when he knew our family. Now it so
happens that neither of my parents ever used terms of endearment to us or to
each other. One of Mummy’s close friends once asked her if it did not upset
her that Daddy never called her ‘darling’; this same friend later said she
understood why Mummy was not hurt by this because, she said, Father spoke
Mummy’s name caressingly which made it itself a term of endearment.
Another trivial fact— Father never added condiments to his meal and was
always very proud of Mummy’s cooking (both English and Indian and
mixtures of the two). But when I met this Mr Desai in Switzerland, twelve
years after Father’s death, he was affectionately reminiscing about his visits to
our family home and he said, “How well I remember your father saying to your
mother after a meal, ‘Well, Darling, that was very nice, but it needed a little
more salt.’” Now such a distortion is totally unimportant and there was
certainly no harm done by it; but it serves to show that with the friendliest of
intentions, memory can be unreliable.
Most of the Parsi community living in London before World War Two were
successful doctors, merchants or lawyers who conformed to the well-ordered
pattern of English upper- middle-class social customs. And when Father at
social banquets sat down when God Save the King was sung at the end of the
meal, and did not toast the Royal Family, many Parsis found him a bit of an
embarrassment. Usually, they made fun of him. There was no real animosity
and most of them were proud of his fame, but his left-wing notions were
certainly not to their liking. Also, many people did not make allowances for
Daddy’s impish sense of humour and a desire to shock and take the mickey out
of the ultra-respectable and rather pompous pillars of Indian society in
London.
One of the letters addressed to my brother in 1937 was from one Spitam Cama,
who had known Father since 1890, but whose social and political opinions
were diametrically opposed to his. Beram had shown this letter, along with all
the others to my mother, and she was most indignant about most of it and
judged it to be “a lot of tommy-rot!” Nonetheless, it existed, and when people
have asked for material on Father, I have passed it on with the rest. Spitam
Cama related that, as soon as World War I broke out, a small group of Indians,
including himself and Father and Sir Mancherjee Bhownagree, met regularly
in a little restaurant at the corner of Dean Street and Oxford Street.
90
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
He recalls that Father said their aim should be “to kill as many Englishmen as
possible” and said British troops in India could be killed by infecting the
Bombay water supply with cholera. If he did use these or similar words, he
certainly was not propounding practical intentions; he was probably finding
an outlet for his anger against British rule in India in a semi-jocular, verbal
torrent. Words and humour were his most potent weapons and refuge. Very
often, a seemingly flippant verbal outburst helps us overcome our deeply-felt
and passionate rages. (I remember when I was working in India House, some
male chauvinist made me excessively angry, and I danced through the office
brandishing a pair of scissors, threatening to operate on his spheres of virility.
Actually, I am too squeamish even to cut someones’ finger nails, so his virility
was quite safe from any surgical intervention from me. But people recalling
the incident and reporting on it many years after, might, understandably,
record me as being a violent and cruel maniac. I assure you, I have never acted
violently in my life against anyone, except verbally).
And so I believe it was with Father. In fact, apart from words, he was
consistently gentle and against violence. For instance, he did not like Mother
to take us children into butchers’ shops or to allow us in the kitchen when she
was cutting up meat or fish. I once asked if I could cut the heads and tails off
the sprats Mummy had bought and he was most distressed.
So I do not think that this assertion by Spitam Cama should be taken as a
serious intention of plotting any physical act of violence. For one thing he was
not so stupid as to think that you could infect water with cholera and induce it
only to affect British troops and not also the indigenous population. I should
imagine that most of us have, at one time or another, said in anger: “Oh, I
could kill that woman!” Such words do not make us all into real or potential
murderers— the words suffice to soak up our emotions. So the words ascribed
to Father by Spitam Cama, even if true, do not indicate that he was a violent
man. Violent men do not have to resort to words, they do the deeds. I certainly
do not take them at their face value as some of his biographers may do.
As I have already mentioned, he had for several years been subjected to
Scotland Yard inquisitiveness. This was no hardship, for his intention was to
make everyone— and that included Scotland Yard— aware of his political
aspirations. He was certainly not trying to hide them. So it merely amused him
to witness the waste of time, effort and money in following him around,
91
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
playing ‘hunt-the-thimble’ when the thimble was set in a brightly illuminated
display cabinet and not hidden from view at all.
Even now, when I thought that a sight of the reports of his movements
throughout those early years of his activity would save me much time in
research, upon applying for sight of the papers I was informed that I am not
allowed to see the dossier compiled by Scotland Yard until seventy years after
his death. By that time, of course, I shall be dead too and, who knows, might
be hearing from him at first hand of all his exploits. Why there should still be
this cloak-and-dagger secrecy I cannot for the life of me imagine. Empires do
not topple so easily— and anyway, where is the Empire to be toppled? As far as
I know, it no longer exists. Or is it still lurking, extant, in one of the Secret
Service files?
One great comfort arose from this constant accompaniment of Father by his
doppelganger from the Yard: surely there could be no wife in England so
secure as my mother in the proof of her husband’s constancy and faithfulness;
for it is certain that, had the Scotland Yard spies been able to dig up anything
discreditable in Father’s personal life, they would have done so jubilantly.
Between his return to England in 1913 and his entry into the British
Parliament as member for North Battersea in 1922, his political aims were
expressed in increasing activity in the socialist movement, the Independent
Labour Party (which he had joined in 1909 in Manchester), the Fabian Society,
the trade union movement, the women’s suffrage cause, in the conscientious
objectors’ movement and, of course, above all, the urgent and compelling cry
for India’s freedom from foreign rule as imposed by the British government;
indeed, he worked to free all peoples from any form of imperialism, the
peoples of Africa, China, Ireland, and all others.
He went further than that; he wanted working people all the world over who,
after all, were the creators of any country’s wealth, to own the means of
production in which they worked, be it on the land or in a factory; in other
words, he believed passionately and steadfastly in world communism,
believing that nothing less could liberate the working people of the world from
exploitation, tyranny, illiteracy and want.
In all these spheres he became known as an ardent and fluent orator who
spoke from heartfelt and sincere convictions and an unshakable belief in the
righteousness of all the causes he was serving. He also held the optimistic view
92
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
that everything he was working for would inevitably one day come to fruition.
He seemed to look upon all setbacks as temporary hitches and hold-ups in the
ultimate triumph of working-class people everywhere. His determination was
profound and unshakeable, and, through his magnetic oratory, infectious.
He tried always to make the British working classes understand that, so long
as British Imperialism created cheap labour in the Empire, the jobs of the
workers in the United Kingdom were put in jeopardy. For even the most lowly
paid English worker enjoyed a far higher standard of wages and living than his
fellow workers in India, Africa, China, etc. Sweated labour in the Empire
meant unemployment at home. He did not attempt to appeal to any altruism
in the British working class, (he was too much of a realist to attempt that), but
he tried to make them understand that it was in their self-interest to fight for
equal wages and standards of living for the working class peoples of the
Empire. The cotton weavers, the coal miners, the jute workers in the United
Kingdom, were all being foisted out of work by the low wages paid to similar
workers in India and Africa.
In other words, it was in the mutual self-interest of workers of the world to
unite and work together for what should be recognised as a common cause. It
was this international aspect of socialism that Father stressed throughout his
life. As early as 1911 he had addressed a letter to the Trades Union Congress
and Labour Representation Committee outlining his ideas for the English
trades unions to take up the cause of working people in India but, he told his
friend Arthur Field, the result was disappointing and disillusioning.
The trade union movement in 1911 was very active and powerful. In was in
that year that Keir Hardie, MP published a pamphlet, ‘Killing No Murder’ in
which he said:
“...The year 1911 will long be remembered for its strikes. Beginning with
the seamen, the strike spread like an epidemic in the Middle Ages, until
it seemed to affect every class of low-paid worker. As, however, my aim
is to concentrate attention on matters mainly, though not exclusively,
connected with the Railways dispute, I pass the others over, merely
remarking that they revealed a power of cohesion and degree of class
solidarity among the most sweated and helpless callings which no one
suspected, and few believed possible.”
Well, Father obviously hoped that it would be possible for that class solidarity
93
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
to cross national boundaries and lead to a concerted strategy with working
people on an Empire, if not upon a global, scale.
On November 24th and 25th, 1912, the International socialist Congress
Against imperialist War met in Basle, called by the International socialist
Bureau. It confirmed their stand taken in Stuttgart five years earlier:
“The Congress appeals to you, Proletariats and socialists of all countries,
to make your voice heard in this decisive hour! Proclaim your will in
every form and in all places; raise your protest in the Parliaments with
all your force; unite in great mass demonstrations; use every means that
the organisation and strength of the proletariat place at your disposal!
See to it that the governments are constantly kept aware of the vigilance
and passionate will for peace on the part of the proletariat! To the
capitalist world of exploitation and mass murder, oppose in this way the
proletarian world of peace and fraternity of peoples!”
This was a stirring call for international unity and action and one to which,
there can be no doubt, Father wholeheartedly subscribed. A message of
brotherly love, an exhortation to love thy neighbour. Had not such a request
been made almost nineteen hundred years before? Well, I suppose we have
progressed slightly; at least no one addressing that Congress was actually
crucified.
It was in 1915 that Arthur Field took Shapurji along to the City Branch of the
Independent Labour Party and he spoke from the floor of the meeting. His
capacity as a speaker was noted and thereafter he lectured on behalf of the ILP
all over London and, subsequently, all over the country. As usual, his meetings
were always well attended and his name drew large and enthusiastic audiences
wherever he was scheduled to speak.
In that same year he had reason to rejoice in the birth of his third son, but also
reason to mourn for the death of Keir Hardie, with whom he had worked
through the years and for whom he held an undying admiration. Keir Hardie’s
gentle but passionate teaching of the socialist gospel had contributed greatly
to Saklatvala’s unshakeable belief in the need for socialism in order to achieve
the widest spread of human happiness. Keir Hardie had written in 1901 to
David Lowe, “I could go on. There is so much to be said, and the desire to
make socialism understood is growing into a passion. I see no other chance of
redeeming the world from poverty and sin and war and lust and all manner of
94
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
uncleanness. But my solitary candle is burning low in its socket... Here there
are warm hearts and peace. Where these are, Heaven is.”
In 1916, there was the Easter Rising in Dublin by Sinn Fein and Saklatvala was
sympathetic to their cause, for he was an ardent upholder of the right of the
Irish to freedom and independence.
In 1937, Arthur Field had written to my brother and I quote now from his
letter:
“...In 1917 Mr C.F. Ryder and Arthur Field founded the Workers’
Welfare League of India. At that time there were but one or two genuine
trades unions in India, and, of course, no TUC there. Within a year,
Saklatvala had joined this WWLI Movement, and unitedly we agitated
and organised for a trade union movement in India and its support and
recognition by the TU Movement in Britain. It is claimed that without
the WWLI neither trades unions nor TUC would have arrived on the
scene for years. As it was, they followed our agitation, and we were
recognised as the cause, and officially thanked for the work.”
Saklatvala no doubt used the Workers’ Welfare League of India to propagate
the beliefs he had expressed in his letter to the TUC in 1911 and which had,
apparently, fallen on deaf ears and blind eyes.
1917 proved to be surely the most momentous year of the century in Europe
and Shapurji Saklatvala watched all the developments keenly. On 16th April,
Lenin arrived in Petrograd. On 18th April, Lenin’s ‘April Theses’ were
submitted, thought by many to be historically more important than those
which Martin Luther had nailed to the Church door in Wittenberg. It was
printed on 26th April 1917 for open discussion and it caused general surprise
and much controversy. On 15th May 1917, the new provisional government
was formed in Russia.
On 1st June of the same year a Great Socialist Conference was held in Leeds in
support of the new government in Russia. The Independent Labour Party and
the British Socialist Party translated and distributed Lenin’s writings.
(Saklatvala was, of course, an active member of both these groups) On July
15th 1917, half a million workers formed a demonstration of protest in Senate
Square, Petrograd, and the Provisional government, with Tsarist soldiers, fired
on them and killed more than four hundred.
Documents were forged and issued which claimed to implicate Lenin in a
95
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
collaboration with Germany and he was forced to go into hiding for more than
three months. On the 10th August 1917, Arthur Henderson called a Conference
of the British Labour Party in support of the Stockholm Project and he was
sacked from the War Cabinet. Labour delegates wishing to attend the
Stockholm Conference were refused passports and could not, therefore,
attend. (What price the human rights issue then?) During the autumn and
winter of that year, Arthur Henderson and the Webbs elaborated a new
socialist programme, more socialist in spirit than hitherto.
The following year, 1918, the Peoples’ Russian Information Bureau was
formed in Britain and Father joined it. Like many other socialists, he thought
the Russian pattern was only a prelude to a radical change in the politics of the
whole of Europe and this was a period of much hope and optimism.
On 20th February 1918 the Inter- Allied socialist Conference on War Aims was
held in London. There was a General Election in 1918 and Father travelled
frequently to Leicester to give his support to the electoral campaign of Ramsay
MacDonald, and spoke at many of his meetings. Herbert Bryan, a Daily Herald
correspondent, who also wrote in Indian newspapers, wrote to Arthur Field
after Father’s death:
“...with regard to my general impression of him, I think the points that
stand out most in my memory about [Saklatvala] are (1) his grasp of
British political affairs and his great command of English on the
platform, and his speaking ability in general, and, (2) the fact that he
was absolutely tireless and never considered sparing his physical powers
in the least if he thought there was something to be done to advance the
cause he had at heart. I think that there can be no doubt whatever that
he wore himself out prematurely by reason of the strain of incessant
propaganda work and the constant travelling involved, which brought
about his premature death.
“The most striking instance I can remember at the moment of the way
in which he used up his physical strength for propaganda purposes was
during the General Election of 1918. For some time during the Election,
Sak travelled from London to Leicester evening after evening to speak
for Ramsay MacDonald, and travelled back again to London the same
night...”
At that time, Father was still working in the Tata office and did a full day’s
96
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
work after his nocturnal activities in Leicester.
The following year, when he was 45, I was born and he finally achieved the
‘baby Sehri’ he had hoped for in 1915. His adoration for the new arrival bored
the rest of the family (my aunts and uncles) but he was at home so seldom, due
to the load of political meetings he was addressing all over the country, that he
became a stranger to me and I cried when he picked me up when I was still a
baby. This caused him a good deal of anguish. But the political meetings won
the day and he continued to travel tirelessly almost every weekend. As soon as
I was about three, he used to take me with him on his wanderings; I still have
vivid memories of his meetings, of visits to gypsy encampments, to coal mines
and to mills. And, of course, the two of us got to know each other a little
better!
Although Arthur Field says the Workers’ Welfare League of India was founded
in 1917, it was not until 1918 that the League published a ‘Statement of
Principles’. On the title page of the pamphlet setting out these principles the
office bearers are listed as follows:
President: J.M. Parikh (a close friend of Father’s);
Treasurer: K.P. Mehta, (as has already been said, he was Father’s closest and
oldest friend);
Secretary of the Indian Committee: S. Saklatvala;
Secretary of the English Committee: John Arnall;
General Secretary: Arthur Field.
The statement was addressed to the British Trades and Labour Bodies; it
would seem to be very similar in content to Father’s letter addressed in 1911 to
leading men of the TUC (whose reaction to it had been so disappointing), and
I feel certain that his hand is writ large on this document which I offer in full
below:
“This League is not associated with any political party or religious
movement. Its chief claim is that our Oriental fellow-subjects of the
working orders of society have a right to identical or equivalent
measures of general welfare and labour protection as have been
instituted for the working class in Great Britain. Whatever views may be
taken of the soundness and adequacy of the measures of social welfare
granted to the workpeople of Great Britain, it cannot be denied that if
97
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
such concessions are beneficial here these or equal measures of relief
are still more necessary for Indian workers.
“It is not, however, intended to adopt a doctrinaire attitude, and to
propose the application to India of measures that may be even opposed
by the unwilling objects of misguided philanthropy. The regulations and
enactments to be proposed will be discussed point by point by Indian
and English committees of this League. The essential part of the
League’s propaganda is the movement to secure from the people of this
country a recognition of the right of the people of India to equal
consideration with themselves.
“There is a considerable mass of otherwise fair-minded men and women
in this country who exhibit little or no consideration for peoples of a
different colour from themselves, even when performing similar
services as subjects of the same Empire. Most British citizens declare
their belief in the righteousness of democracy, yet many of them see no
absurdity in limiting its application by the shade of a man’s or a
woman’s skin.
“It must not be presumed from our insistence on the conditions of
workers in factories, mines, etc. (who, in India, form but a small part of
the population), that we neglect the questions of agriculture and
agricultural labour, of the Indian Lascars [that is, the maritime
workers], etc.
“From England an impetus can be imparted to initiate far-reaching
changes for the masses in India. It is a good and proper thing for a
Home government to defer to the opinion of the Dependency, but in the
course of this proper procedure the opinion that now prevails is the
opinion of the merchants and of the manufacturers. The former are not
favourable to any proposal that tends to alter the simple and
unambitious masses. The latter, in the face of the experience of the
whole world, believe that cheap labour profits them. If legislation, even
the mildest, is proposed, they believe the English authorities are trying
to spoil Indian industries.
“The opposition to reform is not exclusively from these directions.
Opposition to the Viceroy’s Bill of 1906 for extending the Factory Act
also arose from persons who advocate self-government and claim to be
98
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
democratic. There is even an element of mistaken self-interest in some
English working-class circles promoting a toleration of present
conditions of Indian labour. Against this pressure of interest and
ignorance the best intentioned proposals in the Home Legislature can
succeed only by the organised influence of the British working classes.
“Such efforts, in the opinion of the League, should be directed to
improvements of as general an application as possible— industrial,
agricultural and educational. British democracy might be able to secure
the appointment of a Labour Minister for India in the Parliament of
Great Britain, with the effect of providing a channel for Indian opinion
of a different character from that which now prevails.
“The work of the League lies clear before it, but the further stages need
not be more minutely defined at present. Well organised effort can
undoubtedly influence British opinion to care about matters that would
otherwise be neglected. Such an effort is now inaugurated on behalf of
the British subjects in India. The people of Great Britain must be
convinced that their own interests are in no way opposed to, and are
even bound up with, a just and generous treatment of their Eastern
brothers and sisters.”
After giving details of subscriptions and membership of the League,
there follows a further address from ‘The TU and Labour Section of the
League to the Trades and Labour Bodies of Great Britain.’ This reads:
“The Workers’ Welfare League of India feel that the democracy of Great
Britain has unwisely neglected to keep touch with the working people of
the Empire. By such neglect they lose in moral, national, and democratic
strength. By neglecting the conditions of the industrial and agricultural
workers in India they have made it possible for their employers to work
industries in India against industries in England. In this case mutual
safety dictates an immediate study of the problem. There is danger of a
deliberate competition of Indian with English conditions, unless steps
are taken to discuss and improve the conditions in India.
“It is not presumptuous or futile to attempt to undertake such a work,
for the control of India lies, and will for some years continue to lie, with
the Legislature in England, while the democratic elements here are
gaining an increasing share in the control of affairs.
99
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
“The workers in Great Britain have been, as participators in the British
Empire, discussing questions of the most far-reaching importance. At
such a juncture, when every co-operation is essential, instead of a voice
from India we are confronted by a dumb people, so far as Labour is
concerned.
“This leaves it possible for declarations to be made, in the name of
India, that this or that trifling change is not only necessary but sufficient
to satisfy India’s needs. We also find this type of advocates declaring
that the people of India will greatly resent an extension of Labour
legislation, and that it is unnecessary; while they themselves resent
suggestions of improved conditions and increased wages. We feel
instinctively that this attitude is unjustified, but until we investigate we
cannot say we know. We must end this practice of neglecting to secure
verified British -Indian opinion and co-operation. These being available
through the Workers’ Welfare League of India, we invite the help of the
TU and Labour world in the circulation and utilisation of the
information available.
“The Trade Unions and other organisations that consider this appeal
will naturally ask, ‘What do you expect us to do?’ Our reply is, we ask
you to allow one of yourselves on your Committee to devote himself to
purely British-Indian Labour questions, and he might also make himself
incidentally useful by a study of Labour conditions in other Oriental
countries, which may equally affect Labour in Great Britain and British
India. If you cannot spare a committee-man’s activities for these
purposes, we suggest that you co-opt a special member for the purpose.
When appointed he should be entrusted with the following duties:
(A) To ascertain what are the conditions of Indian Labour in the
corresponding industries in India.
(B) To collect proposals for the amendment of Indian conditions.
(C) To examine how far, if at all, the interests of English Labour are
affected by inequitable conditions of Indian Labour.
(D) To condense the data and briefly report to the Committee from time
to time.
“With the special member thus appointed the TU and Labour Section of
the League is prepared to keep in touch, acting gratuitously as a Bureau
100
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
of Information relative to Oriental Labour.
“As the result of continued deliberation, we hope to arrive at an
organised presentation of suggestions and proposals to the Labour
members in Parliament. We hope that the Trade Unions may eventually
combine to send to India a Commissioner to investigate the subject on
the various localities, and gather facts otherwise unobtainable. The
result of a ready co-operation of the trade and Labour organisations in
this effort of the WWLI might even be the appointment, by their own
vote and initiative, of a permanent official on their behalf, and under
their own control, to keep in constant touch with the members for
Oriental Labour Questions on each of the TU Committees.” (Documents
relating to the WWLI appear as Appendix A to this chapter.)
In that same year (1918), Saklatvala was a delegate to the Independent Labour
Party Conference, where he represented the City of London Branch. It may be
of general interest, in view of the Labour Party’s subsequent repudiation of
Communist sympathies and the often hysterical eschewing of any links with
Marxism, that in that year, the Chairman’s address included the following
exhortation:
“‘The first Sunday in May, which has been for so long specially
dedicated by the socialist movement to Internationalism, is this year the
centenary of the birth of Karl Marx. In normal times, the socialist
movement would have taken advantage of this event to do honour to
one of the greatest names in the history of Socialism, but, at a time like
this, it is especially fitting that we should recognise the work of the man
who was the pioneer of Internationalism. We desire, however, that
branches of the ILP should, this year more than ever, set aside the first
Sunday in May for international demonstrations, and that at such
demonstrations special reference should be made to the life and labours
for International Socialism of Karl Marx, and to the indebtedness of the
proletariat for his great services to Socialism and Internationalism. In
the name of the Party we propose to arrange for a wreath to be laid at
his graveside, and to take such other steps as seem advisable to pay
homage to his memory.’
“John Scurr, representing Bow and Bromley then moved:
‘“That the demand of the Indian people to be recognised as equal
101
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
partners within the British Commonwealth is essentially democratic and
that to realise the ideal each country must have the opportunity for self
determination. This Conference, therefore, demands that a measure
granting self government to the Indian people be placed on the Statute
Book at the earliest opportunity.’
“In moving the resolution, Mr Scurr said there was one matter to which
he would like to refer. In a certain newspaper, mention has been made
of the foreign accents of delegates of that Conference. The one delegate
to whom that reference could refer was Shapurji Saklatvala, a native of
Bombay, and, therefore, a subject of the British Empire, and in every
sense of the word entitled to the same rights and privileges as
themselves. He happened to be a journalist himself, but he sometimes
had to admit that he belonged to the most dishonourable profession in
the world; and that there should be in a so-called leading newspaper
such a reference showed the reliance they could place on everything else
which a paper of that kind might say. The resolution was agreed.
“Shapurji Saklatvala (City of London), then moved:
“‘That this Conference requests all members of the Party who take an
active interest in and aid the work of the Indian National Congress, and
who propose delegations from Indian bodies to British Labour
Conferences, to call upon their Indian colleagues to give a place in their
political programmes to Democratic measures which they so far have
opposed or neglected, such as ‘no representation on Councils in India
except by popular election’; immediate legislation to improve the hours,
wages and general conditions of workers; and an open advocacy of the
Nationalisation of Lands, Railways, Mines, and other large and
important industries.’
“Mr Saklatvala said he was not there to carry on a fight for any one class
in India, he was there as a socialist, a sincere, ernest, whole-hearted
believer and supporter of the policy of the Independent Labour Party.
He could not help it that his accent was a little foreign, but his heart was
not foreign. Those of his comrades who had known him since he joined
the Party in 1909 would know that he only wanted to do one thing, and
that was to spread socialism from one end of the world to the other.
“The National Organiser had told them that it should be possible to
102
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
make the membership of the Independent Labour Party 100,000. It
might go much further. The people of India suffered from ignorance, not
ill-will. They were essentially socialist in mind, and his imagination
carried him to the time when the Independent Labour Party might have
ten million members.
“When Mr [Ramsey] MacDonald was proposing the resolution on the
Soldiers’ Charter, he did not think that it was in the remotest part of
their minds that while they were talking of 27s 6d allowance, they who
were responsible for the soldiers’ pensions in India were guilty of paying
a pension of 5s (5 shillings) a month and a separation allowance of 10s
(10 shillings) a month. They were guilty of giving compensation of £5 to
£10 to the families of those who had lost their lives. They did not realise
it. They had not asked the Indian National Congress during the four
years of war to move any peace resolution. They had put on their list
eight million voters, yet they had not asked their Indian friends to put
eight voters on the list. He therefore appealed to them to be more
definite in talk of Internationalism. They should realise the duty that
was before all of them of looking to themselves and the opportunities
that were before them.
“The resolution was agreed to.”
During the period of the suffragette movement, certainly from as early as 1908
when he participated in a protest rally and march in Hyde Park, Saklatvala
was closely associated with the movement and was a great admirer of Sylvia
Pankhurst’s leadership. But from 1917 onward, Sylvia Pankhurst became a
passionate devotee of communism as she felt that events in Russia presented
the working classes with a completely new social structure that could alleviate
the deprivations of poverty, so acutely manifesting themselves during the war.
She changed the name of the newspaper of which she was editor from The
Women’s Dreadnought to The Workers’ Dreadnought. Father was a regular
reader of this paper. Later, she also changed the name of her organisation
from The Workers’ Suffrage Federation, to The Workers’ Socialist Federation.
Later still, in 1919, when the Third International was formed in Moscow,
Pankhurst became a dedicated advocate of affiliation of British socialists to the
Third International. She went even further than most socialists of her time
and refused to participate in parliamentary activity, actually turning down the
103
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
offer of becoming a parliamentary candidate. (This attitude was not upheld by
Lenin and she was much criticised within the Communist fold.) While, clearly,
Saklatvala was against the boycotting of parliamentary procedures, he
remained a friend and admiring political colleague of Sylvia Pankhurst,
respecting her courage, dedication and sincerity.
At the ILP Conference the following year, 1919, Saklatvala was once again a
delegate for the City of London Branch, and heard the following stirring
address by the Chairman, Mr Philip Snowden:
“The last year has been crowded with events of tremendous importance.
We have seen the beginning of the end of the old order of class
domination and economic slavery. The new order is being born in blood
and suffering. Slowly and painfully humanity has climbed the hard road
to the summit of Calvary, but the resurrection to the new life of freedom
and brotherhood is at hand. Over two thirds of Europe the Red Flag of
socialism, red with the blood of our martyred dead, floats where but
yesterday despotism held the people in vile subjection. The mighty
reverberations of the Russian Revolution have sounded through the
world,
‘And the slave, where’er he cowers,
feels the soul within him climb
To the awful verge of manhood,
as the energy sublime
Of a century bursts full-blossomed
on the thorny stem of time.’
[Quote from James Russell Lowell, The Present Crisis ]
“With prophetic insight, the Independent Labour Party, in its manifesto
issued on the outbreak of war in August 1914, said: ‘In forcing this
appalling crime upon the nations, it is the rulers and diplomats, the
militarists, who have sealed their doom. In tears and blood and
bitterness the greater democracy will be born. With steadfast faith we
greet the future; our cause is holy and imperishable, and the labour of
our hands has not been in vain.’
“The state of the world today is a fulfilment of that prophesy.”
In reply to various other points raised, the chairman said that the National
Administrative Council of the ILP were watching the international situation
104
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
very closely, and they hoped to put before the Conference some statement
giving an outline of its suggested reconstitution. The NAC looked upon the
matter with very grave concern, and, if events did develop to such an extent as
in their opinion to call for a special Conference of the Party, such a Conference
would be called. Saklatvala requested the NAC, when they did call this special
Conference, to be prepared with a proposal by which the rank and file of the
Labour Party might be induced to remove from the Labour Party those men
who were the obstacles, to the spirit of socialism.
The chairman read the following resolution:
“‘This Conference demands the withdrawal of British troops from
Ireland, and the recognition of that form of government which is desired
by the Irish people. It further regards the claims of the Indian and
Egyptian peoples to self-government as essentially just, and demands
that they be granted at the earliest opportunity.’
“Shapurji Saklatvala, in supporting the resolution, said he had to ask
them to read much more into the resolution than appeared in the
wording, and also, owing to the shortness of time, he had to ask them to
hear much more in his words than merely the words he spoke.
“The whole position was this— a foreign domination existed in a country
which had nothing in common with them. They might wonder that from
time to time people in India had acquiesced in their presence in the
country. The true reason was not because they were enamoured with
Lord Curzon or Lord Hardinge, but now and again they had seen on the
horizon an Englishman like Keir Hardie.
“When they had seen a Ramsay MacDonald, and had pinned their faith
in Philip Snowden, they had been living in hopes that England was full
of Englishmen like these, and it was for this reason alone that India had
acquiesced in the presence of the British. His demoralised, unarmed
and tyrannised countrymen, through fear, had launched out to assist the
jingoes of Great Britain in the war. They had become partners in a
hideous crime. No sooner was the war over than the imperialist,
militarist rulers of India gave to India Rowlatt Acts, and the very
aeroplanes and armoured cars they had presented to the British
government were used against an innocent and unarmed crowd. Bombs
had been dropped on meetings held in the streets, and 250 casualties
105
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
were admitted. These Rowlatt Acts were given to India in the name of
Great Britain. Did the British men and women identify themselves with
such militarist acts?
“Speaking of the capitalist exploitation as the cause of the troubles of
the Indian people, Mr Saklatvala quoted from the results of a particular
enquiry into the monthly expenses of 11,000 workers; for a family of
five,— father, mother and 3 children— the expenses, regulated by wages,
were as follows: 12s 6d (12 shillings and sixpence) per month for rice for
father, mother and 3 children, 4s 6d a month for meat, fish and mutton,
9d per month for butter, oils and sauce; is 7d per month for vegetables.
“They wanted the solidarity of the Labour of Great Britain with the
Labour of India.
“The resolution was carried.”
In a letter addressed to my brother about a year after my father’s death, Lord
Snowden wrote:
“...I first knew your father before he joined the ILP when he was
connected with the India Reform Movement. Afterwards he joined the
ILP. Then he was a prominent figure at the annual conferences of the
ILP. Later he became a Communist and, as you know, entered
Parliament as a Communist MP. He was quite a figure in the House of
Commons, and made an impression by his volcanic eloquence... I had a
high regard for his honesty and disinterested sincerity... His
comparatively early death was a real grief to me.”
With the new international scene that was emerging after the Russian
Revolution, factions arose within the ILP, some members being fiercely in
favour of affiliation with the Third International and others being equally
fiercely opposed to such affiliation. Saklatvala was, of course, a strenuous and
vociferous advocate for affiliation. In 1920 he was not a delegate at the annual
conference of the ILP and his attempt to be elected to the National
Administrative Council was unsuccessful. This may well have been due to his
pro-affiliation propaganda within the City of London Branch. He was one of
159 signatories to a Declaration of the Left Wing of the ILP, made in 1920
under the heading ‘The Call of the Third International.’ (The text of this
document appears as Appendix B to this chapter.)
[Editor’s note: Around this time, Saklatvala became acquainted with John
106
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Archer, then Mayor of Battersea, and the first person of African descent to
hold public office in Britain. According to Marc Wadsworth, Archer promoted
Shapurji’s 1922 candidacy for parliament within the Labour Party. See
‘Comrade Sak: A Political Biography’].
At the 1921 Annual Conference of the ILP we see him appearing as a delegate
for Clapham. This would seem to indicate that he had perhaps already left the
City of London Branch and joined the Branch in Clapham, but there is no hard
evidence for this assumption. Both Herbert Bryan and Arthur Field gave their
version of events leading up to Saklatvala’s resignation from the ILP but
neither of them gave any precise dates. I quote them both below.
Extract from a letter from Herbert Bryan, written to Arthur Field in 1937:
“After the war, a movement arose in the ILP in favour of affiliation of
the Party to the Third International. Sak took a leading part in this
movement, and when the proposal to join the Third International was
rejected by the ILP Annual Conference, Sak left the ILP and joined the
Communist Party. Before leaving the ILP, however, he moved a
resolution at the City Branch meeting to the effect that the Branch
should secede from the ILP and become the City of London socialist
Society. This proposal was rejected by the Branch.”
Extract from a letter from Arthur Field to my brother in 1937:
“The Menshevik Revolt of Russia in 1917— and its effect in England
(Council of Workers, Peasants and Soldiers)— found us forwarding it—
but pressing for more radical developments. The Bolshevik victory in
Russia in 1918, both of us saw, ...must mean our plunge into a red union
at the earliest moment. The British Socialist Party became the British
Section of the Third Communist International, and we tried to get the
very advanced men of the National Administrative Council of the ILP to
press the national body to affiliate. With the rejection of the proposal by
the Annual Conference of the ILP, the walk-out of the reds occurred and
Saklatvala joined the CP...”
“At the Annual Conference of the ILP in 1921, Saklatvala represented
the Clapham Branch. Speaking in the debate on the international
situation and in particular as to whether the ILP should or should not
affiliate with the Third International, he said he did not intervene to
urge upon one section or the other to strive to gain a sectional victory.
107
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
He asked them to bear in mind socialism. As one of those fortunate
foreigners, might he put it to the Conference to imagine the effects of
the decisions they might take on the outside world.
“There was not the slightest doubt that in the twenty-one conditions [of
admission to the International, see below] there was some attack on
their traditional emotions. Had the ILP succeeded in going to
Zimmerwald [British socialists were prevented from travelling there in
1915], the history of the International might have been different, but
they had also been guilty of taking up a provocative attitude at a critical
juncture, and they had been responsible for a portion of the bitterness in
those twenty-one points. He would apologise to Comrade MacDonald
for taking him as an illustration. MacDonald stood as an avowed official
secretary of the Second International. With his own characteristic
temperament he would be the last person to accept an official position
in the Second and in the Third. There would be, as the American
Divorce Act expressed it, ‘incompatibility of temperament’, and, sooner
or later, one or the other would have to apply to the Courts for divorce
papers.
“The Third International did not ask them to deport him after the
manner of Lloyd George. All they said was that comrades with such
convictions should not hold offices, and he thought the one person in
the Conference who would agree with him was Comrade MacDonald
himself.
“He would say to his pacifist comrades, to his comrades to whom
human life was sacred and dear, turn to Amritsar, where in half-an-hour
General Dyer poured his bullets out until he had killed 1200 people for
the simple reason that the whole of that unfortunate crowd was
unarmed.
“There was nothing to prevent them from putting their point of view
before the Third International, but when the majority of the members of
the International had decided upon their policy and their constitution, it
must remain binding on the minority, otherwise no organisation in the
world could continue to exist.
“Capitalism was stronger than it was five years ago. Imperialism in
Great Britain had not only not been destroyed, but had not even been
108
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
arrested at the point at which they found it before the war. British
Imperialism, with its great idealist opponent, the ILP, had managed to
get a million more square miles. British militarism today had reached
the highest point of brutal bestiality, and had gone beyond all bounds of
honour.
“If that was the potency of ILP idealism, why were they offended when
others came and said, ‘Keep your idealism, but make it more potent’?
He would, therefore, appeal to them to go to Moscow, accept the twenty-
one points, and those who felt the points were too bitter, swallow them.”
The twenty-one points referred to are given as Appendix C to this chapter.
This 1921 Conference of the ILP, in rejecting the proposed affiliation with the
Third International, was for Father, a momentous one. Although he did not
make up his mind in haste, the rejection by the ILP of affiliation left him, now
a convinced Communist, little choice. His devotion up to this moment to the
ILP was beyond doubt and he had served it wholeheartedly since 1909 and
had many close friends within it. He had been one of their staunchest and
most vigorous propagandists addressing numberless meetings up and down
the country; as a speaker, he always drew big crowds and his oratory had
served the party well. (At an earlier conference he had said that he envisaged a
day when ten million Indian members would join the ILP.)
The conference ended on the 29th March and he returned home from
Stockport a lonely and much saddened man. He had become alienated from
comrades with whom he had hitherto shared his political ideals and
aspirations. He had worked tirelessly to persuade them to accept affiliation
and he had failed. It was, to say the least, disillusioning. Of course he was to
have his communist colleagues now, but he had hoped that old friends and
new friends would affiliate and remain in one body together. The schism was a
painful wrench to him.
Almost exactly a year before, on the 3rd April 1920, his father had died in
Manchester. They had been very close and his death had left Shapurji with
none of his Indian family near him in England. And now his constant
association with old political allies and friends, some of whom had known him
almost from the time of his first arrival in this country, was to be severed. It
was a bitter blow and he must have felt very isolated— for now he only had the
loved and loving Sehri as an unquestioning and ever-present supporter of any
109
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
decisions he might feel compelled to make.
Concurrently with his work with the Independent Labour Party, he was
working with equal fervour for the London Labour Party, of which he was an
active member, regularly attending and participating in their meetings and
conferences.
At one such meeting on 16th September 1920, applications for affiliation to the
Third International were considered, together with a letter from the National
Agent reporting the refusal of the Labour Party to accept. It was unanimously
decided that the applications could not be acceded to, and the Secretary was
instructed to send a suitable letter stating the grounds for the refusal.
Two months later, at a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Party, the
Secretary reported on various matters connected with the Conference and it
was resolved:
1) That Mr Saklatvala be informed that he may run for both Executive
and Auditor, but that he could only serve in one such capacity...
3) That the Secretary make the fullest use, in his discretion, of the
extracts from the Convention at which the Communist Party was
formed, in the Labour Chronicle...
5) That the request of the Communist Party for a representative to
address the Conference on the question of their affiliation be declined
on the grounds that it would be ultra vires.
On 3rd March 1921, a few days before the fateful ILP Conference, the
Executive Committee of the London Labour Party decided that the Party
should not be represented at the conference called by the Workers’ Welfare
League of India.
It was also decided that Battersea Trades Council be informed that the London
Labour Party has no constitutional status in so far as the endorsement of
parliamentary candidates is concerned, and that the terms of Resolution 19
regarding the Communist Party be quoted for the information of Battersea
Trades Council.
Although it is not stated that this has anything to do with Father’s
parliamentary candidature, I think we can safely assume that it had. But, at
that time, even his formal membership of the Communist Party did not debar
him from standing as a parliamentary candidate for the Labour Party in the
110
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
General Election of the following year.
Let us, therefore, move on now to that General Election and Saklatvala’s years
as a member of Parliament.
in
Appendix A to Chapter 7: Statement
of the Workers’ Welfare League of
India, 1919
Statement Submitted to the Joint Committee on Indian Reforms on Behalf of
The Workers’ Welfare League of India.
By Shapurji Saklatvala supported by Duncan Carmichael.
Published by The Workers’ Welfare League of India, 18 Featherstone
Buildings, High Holborn, London.
To The Chairman, The Joint Committee of the Houses of Parliament on
the government of India Bill, House of Commons, Westminster, dated
22nd July, 1919.
My Lord,
I am directed by the Council of the Workers’ Welfare League of India, to
offer myself as a witness before your Committee, and to bring to your
Lordship’s attention the peculiar claims of the League as the only body
that combines in it the actual knowledge of Indian economic conditions
with practical experience of the working of British Labour organisations
in this country.
The League devotes its attention and activities to the betterment of the
condition of workers, including peasantry in all parts of India with the
object of securing some approximation to the standards which prevail in
all civilised parts of the world. The League, as a general Labour
organisation is not unmindful of the disastrous consequences that must
ensue generally to the progress of Labour, and therefore to the material
well-being of the masses in Great Britain and the British Colonies by the
continued degraded conditions of their fellow-workers in India.
The League for the first time submits, as no other body has hitherto
112
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
done, the grave, almost catastrophic situation that is being created
against a solid industrial advancement and social civic progress within
the Empire by utilising millions of additional persons for production of
modern requirements of life by up-to-date Western methods, without
permitting these very millions to be in their turn the additional
consumers of those or other similar products, or to partake of the new
social and political privileges that are being evolved, as an effect of and
that are intended to be maintained by these material productions.
The League is carefully constituted with two component parts standing
together on one common moral and economic platform where the moral
and material interests of the two groups, one Indian, and the other
European, do not clash, but will harmonise together and which unitedly
must essentially form one British standard in a British Empire, and the
absence of which should draw away from Great Britain any excuse for
direct or mandatory control over other countries. The Indian section
with its Indian knowledge and Indian sentiment and the English section
with its advanced experience form in equal halves our united Council.
The latter section join the League on account of its existing economic
relations with, knowledge of, or partiality for the Indian fellow-workers,
and the former or the Indian section is formed from such Indian
residents in this country who have relations with, knowledge of, or
partiality for Labour organisations in this country.
My Council in directing me to submit their united British Case to you,
not only bear in mind my information on Indian economic and Labour
conditions but they also take in view my fairly long and active
membership of the National Union of Clerks, The Independent Labour
Party, the British socialist Party, the Labour Party, and similar
organisations, which feature, your Lordship will perceive, is not existing
in case of Indian representatives of purely Indian bodies, or other
individual members offering their evidence.
In the proposed government of India Bill my League foresees a further
and accelerating accentuation of the evil that the League is formed to
combat against. On the one hand it ignores all rights and direct powers
to peasants and workers, and on the other hand it enhances existing
privileges, and creates new powers for a limited group of persons, who,
113
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
however well-intentioned and well-meaning, have throughout the
world, through a false nervousness in the direction of self-preservation,
and through an absorbing attention to one particular phase of limited
‘progress’, have created and are creating a condition ‘where only wealth
accumulates and men decay.’
If after more than one hundred years of settled British Rule in India
need is felt to further ‘reform’ the government of India, all attention and
energy in the main must be directed to those phases of life and
government which have so far obtained the least progressive measures
and democratic consideration.
We consider any measure of government Reform not only incomplete
but unthinkable for a government that claims to be civilised, never mind
Democratic, that does not pin its faith in the progress of the masses and
by the efforts of the workers themselves in unison with all the workers
within the same Empire, and even in the neighbouring states. To treat,
today, in India, after all the mature experiences in Europe, suffering
Labour as not worthy of self-assertive rights, and to create higher
powers and privileges for the happier portion in the same society, is like
transferring the sweepings of old Europe into India under disguise of
giving to India a set of reforms and progressive and evolutionary
measures along lines of Western culture.
If the bold and right measure of referring the whole Bill back to the
government for re-construction on modern basis be not acceptable, my
League would consider the following amendments as absolutely
essential:
(a) Introduction of popular franchise for Indians that would include all
workers and soldiers.
(b) Questions of Labour Legislation to be treated as indivisible British
Empire questions, under the protection of the Imperial Parliament,
similar to the questions of Army, Navy and Foreign Policy, and
suspension of any transfer of power over lives of millions of Indian
Workers to the control of the Indian or European non-labouring classes
in India, before the workers are given full franchise rights in India.
(c) From the commencement of the new Councils there must be
statutory recognition of the right of the workers to combine.
114
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
(d) All the old laws and regulations that humiliate Labour, that make
Labour punishable criminally for Labour faults, or that make a person’s
service compulsory instead of a free-will contract, should be abolished
or withdrawn forthwith, and made a matter of the barbarous and
oppressive past, viz.: such legislation as the Assam Emigration Act, the
Madras Planters’ Labour Act, and regulations and practice of
Impressment of Labour, Indentured Labour, and recruitment of Labour
by Agents of private companies with direct or indirect forms of
government assistance.
(e) A system of Indian Labour Ministry in Parliament, with similar
Ministries in all the new Councils of India be introduced, with an
understanding of such posts being given preferentially to persons that
are connected with and experienced in British Labour organisations;
and also the intercourse of British and Indian Labour through
recognised agents of British Trade Unions for communion between
Indian and British bodies, as well as for communications with the
Indian Ministries be recognised and accepted, both as a material and
moral support to Indian Labour, and also in view of the repercussion of
Indian conditions on Labour conditions of the United Kingdom.
(f) The practice of safe-guarding Labour interests through nominees of a
government, in the election of which Labour has no direct vote, should
not only be condemned, but should be admitted as one stage worse for
Labour interests, than leaving Labour altogether unrepresented.
(g) Some immediate reforms in the indefensible rates of wages, and
hours of work for the employees of the government of India themselves,
which conditions have been briefly described in the memorandum
submitted by the League to Mr Secretary Montagu on 25th January last,
and a copy of which is attached herewith.
My League is aware of some of the erroneous ideas that exist against the
above suggestions, and I am prepared on their behalf to show by
evidence, the groundlessness of fears, and interests that seek to prevent
the introduction of these reforms.
Some illustrative fallacious contentions may be briefly reviewed as
under:
(a) Indian workers should be denied franchise on account of their
115
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
illiteracy:
Literacy has never been made the sine qua non condition of franchise
rights. The Reform Acts and other Acts from 1830 to 1870 enfranchised
large numbers of illiterate persons in this country. It is the absence of
the vote that is responsible for the negligence of educational rights and
facilities. If society is made to suffer from illiterate voters, it will expel
illiteracy, if Society is permitted to protect itself by boycotting illiterate
persons, it will take up their cause in a leisurely fashion. The Indian
village worker, though illiterate, is far from being uncultured. The latest
revolution in Russia proves at least one thing, that an illiterate Asiatic
when given a vote and voice in state affairs, is capable of appreciating
and enjoying it to the extent of living up to it, fighting for it, and dying
for it, as ardently as his literate European comrade.
(b) Indian Labour questions must be treated as quite separate Indian
questions from the Indian point of view alone, and are not of the nature
of questions of Foreign Policy, the Army and the Navy.
Our Foreign Policy, Imperialism, the Army, the Navy are all maintained
to support and safeguard the material welfare of the state and to defend
as well as to increase the industrial activity of the Empire. Labour, the
most important factor of Industry, is therefore the life and soul of
everything, and the intelligent union and undivided progress of the
Empire’s Labour is a question of Sovereign and Imperial importance of
the first magnitude.
Conditions of modern industries within the Empire are almost uniform,
the interiors of factories, mines, dockyards, etc., being almost the same
with the same tax on human mind and body. The Companies’ Acts that
safeguard the interests of investors are uniform. The Indian managers,
directors, merchants, investors and large dividend earners, large land
proprietors, lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc., have all changed their
lives, housing, food, clothing, etc., and brought them in close
approximation to the lives of modern merchants and masters in Europe,
thus proving the advantageous applicability of a uniform standard of life
for Europeans and Indians engaged in the same professions or trades.
(c) The government may claim that they do not prevent any legitimate
and constitutional labour activity.
116
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
The existing repressive measures are capable of destroying any activity.
In the initial stages, any well-intended labour programme of a really
independent character, free from master-class wire-pulling, would
arouse political suspicions, and would be crushed by existing laws even
before germination. It is absolutely essential to have distinct legislation
framed to sanction labour activities along the lines of British standards.
A statutory sanction is different from a benevolent acquiescence or of
not putting into operation existing harsh measure or regulation.
(d) Excuse may be held forth, that the old laws and regulations, more
worthy of a pirate chief than of a settled government within the country,
are no longer put into operation with their early days’ rigour, and things
are different, etc., etc.
We are talking of Reforms. No reforms are British reforms that do not
immediately do away with un- British principles and laws enacted under
stress of war-like conditions. British Labour is British Labour, here or in
India, and several of these Indian Acts are an insult to, and an outrage
upon British Labour, offered by a ruling caste that did not view labour
very differently from slavery. To save the British name, reform of this
unspeakable condition is of primary importance.
(e) India is not ripe for Labour Ministry, etc., etc.
Any antidote is required most where the evil is the greatest and acutest.
Ministries of Labour are more needful in backward countries than in
forward ones. To set out today to create a new machinery of government
along lines of Western culture and modern standards, and to omit a
specialised and separate Ministry of Labour, independent of commercial
interest, is, to say the least, a very grave omission.
(f) Labour being backward in India, the government desire to give them
protection through a suitable nominee, and care will be taken to select a
very disinterested gentleman, etc., etc.
Even in this country, we notice that it is not the person’s previous career
which makes him appear ‘suitable’— but it is the medium through which
he gets into a position, that moulds his political and administrative
psychology in his future work. In all conscience a government cannot
escape from its own view-point and the customary nervousness attached
to responsibility of a small class ruling over a large mass, and the more
117
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
honest and careful the selection of a nominee the more fatal in the long
run, it proves to the interest of the protected ones. A free, healthy
control by electors’ votes is the only known means to check political
deterioration. An absence of an elected agent to protect an interest is a
drawback, but the fact of such absence throws an amount of risk as well
as responsibility upon the one-sided administrative force. The presence
of a nominee selected by those against whom protection is to be sought
becomes a positive calamity by your opponent thereby securing your so-
called assent and sometimes even your thanks, for undesirable
measures, through this dangerous medium.
(g) The government might argue that they based the wages on prevailing
standards, and did give even a low wage to villagers who previously had
none.
No government is justified in comparing a condition of bygone days
with the present. Free of control from without, every country undergoes
changes and evolves from one stage into another. The government of
India, in perpetuating an old system, set a bad example to private
traders, and then adopting the traders’ standard, continues the
perniciously low wage system for ever. The villagers’ life conditions are
changed, but his life standards are forcibly maintained unaltered. From
a quiet, leisurely, uncontrolled, free-will, non-nerve-wracking cottage
industry, he is moved into modern mines, factories and places of work,
demanding different exactions from his mind, body and morals, and the
government set no new standard of life for him, subject him to newly
created miseries of poverty, filth, of ignorance, etc., which in his
previous condition were absent.
Every industry in India is capable of bearing a much higher wage today.
The selling price of articles produced and the commercial value of public
services, such as transport, post, police, etc., are today subject to the law
of world prices, and give to controlling interests almost the values in
India as in Europe. A glance at the record of Indian concerns as given in
the attached copy of the Capital is sufficient to convince one that Indian
industrial concerns can spare a bigger margin for workers’ wages. The
government must first reform its own methods before legislating for
others. On moral grounds the government of India should seek this
118
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
reform before any other, unless it prefers to court contempt or ridicule
from the civilised world, which has not yet fully realised the very low
level of Indian wages.
Here is one instance, the President of the General Electric Company of
Schektady— America, in his capacity as the Chairman when, speaking at
the Annual Meeting of the Institute of Electrical Engineers in 1918 held
up to the contempt of the world the German government that in
occupied territories in Russia, was employing Russian labour at two
roubles a day for ten hours daily. Should not the government of India
reform itself even to this contemptible standard? Is the world’s opinion
never to effect it harmfully? The Postal Rate in India should be exactly
what it is in Britain, because the Investor and the Trader uses the Post
Office for similar profits as here, and not the illiterate population of 300
millions out of 320 millions. Out of this excess revenue the Indian Post
Office Worker must be paid at the rate of Rupees 15 a week at least.
Similarly the government Railway Worker, Policemen, Soldiers, Village
Teachers, Public Works Labourers could all be put on the 15 Rupees
Weekly Standard, and rates and taxes on commercial communities duly
increased and brought up to British Standard. The hours of work should
be reduced under the Reform of government of India Bill immediately
to ten from 12, and then a further annual reduction of one hour every
year, till a limit of 8 is reached.
With better wages and greater leisure the wage earner will become a
consumer of goods, and a caretaker of his own house and sanitary
surroundings. His demand will largely increase industrial activity,
industrial taxation, and public revenues, and the fictitious plea of
poverty, which in a nature’s rich country can only mean bad banking, of
the government of India will vanish, and India will acquire a British
Standard of life, which will irresistibly be followed by a British Standard
of government and Politics. The present method of reforming the
government of India from the top is unnatural, unhealthy, and unjust
not only to India, but even to the Empire.
My League declines to accept the plea of cheap living in favour of low
wages. Cheap living is a myth, and even if it were true, could only base
itself in deceiving the food-grower by giving him such poor
119
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
remuneration for his toil, that he cannot maintain himself and his
children in a standard of modern comfort and modern decency. But this
cheap living does not exist. The law of world prices levelises selling
prices. Prices of wheat, rice, oilseeds, clothing, even meat, etc., are fixed
after a daily telegraphic exchange of views among all the merchants of
the world. Scientific advancement that produces preserved bananas,
tinned fruit and fish, powdered eggs and milk, tends towards levelising
prices of what used to be perishable articles.
The Indian workers’ cheap living is not based on his actually obtaining
articles of lower values, but is literally based on his doing without
everything that constitutes a worker’s healthy and happy life. He has to
go without regular meals of nutritious food, without furniture of any
kind, without medicine, without books, or education, without sufficient
clothing (the European worker in the hotter climate of South Africa does
not go ill-clad), without soap, without cups and saucers, without
umbrellas, without tram rides to and from his work, without any
sanitary house, and so forth.
The Administration and the government of India have produced this
condition, and then on account of this very condition the government
and the interested public have kept the worker a political outcast. Then
on account of this political disability his condition has to continue to be
the same. No government of India Act can therefore claim to be a
reform unless it first reformed the heinous condition now
euphemistically called cheap living. Death rates of 60 per 1000 and
infantile mortality of 500 to 675 per 1000 tell their own tale.
The following instances require careful sympathetic and also bold and
unorthodox thinking, as pointing to the hopelessness of the attempt of
reforming a people’s life-conditions without recognising the right and
voice of the very sufferers themselves.
(1) The government of India, and the non-popularly elected Councillors
leave the widows of the Indian soldiers on pensions of 14 pence to 30
pence a week. That same government and Councillors make a gift of
£6,000,000 yearly to Great Britain to help her pay her widows at the
rate of 25 shillings to 35 shillings weekly. Had the Indian soldier and his
widow a vote, such a scandal would not have existed, and had their case
120
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
been lost in an adverse Council in India, their genuine representative
would have appealed to the honour and self-respect of England and
English widows not to touch this Indian money, and to spurn this gift of
political motive before the Indian widow herself was paid at least 20
shillings (£1) weekly.
(2) The Indian Ryot (peasant) is deep in debt, and in the hands of
extortionate money-lenders, who are not disconnected with the
commercial fraternity. The government of India would for years, not
open land banks to advance money to them at standard interest, on the
grounds of the government being no money-lender, and also of the
government of India being a poor hand-to-mouth concern. The same
government (see The Mining World and Engineering Record, published
Gresham House, London, issue of Saturday November 23rd 1918— P416
& P421) now advance a loan of £200,000 at five industries to India with
its freedom from Labour Troubles. One would welcome this migration
of Industries if this freedom from Labour Troubles was based on an
intelligent and spontaneous contentment of the worker, well-housed,
fully-clad, sufficiently fed, well educated and well looked after
medically. But when this migration depends entirely on the factor of the
powerful and resourceful ones easily taking advantage over worse
simpletons than what they find at home, the conditions become a set-
back to India and to the Empire, and a government of India Bill that
further favours and strengthens such conditions must in the end prove a
serious set-back.
(3) In free America, the farmer grows his cotton, and before parting
with the product of his toil, secures to himself sufficient remuneration
that would obtain him a well-appointed sanitary house, good rich food,
ample furniture, ample clothing, medicine in illness, education for his
children, and occasional luxuries of life, all with a consequent low death
rate.
The Indian farmer for his toil, obtains none of the above when parting
with the product of his labour. Similarly the grower of wheat, oilseed;
rubber, tea, coffee, coconuts, etc., etc. The government of India Bill does
nothing whatever to reform this condition, but does actually greatly
assist the class of Indian and English merchants who are today sitting in
121
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
concert, to devise plans to secure two million additional bales of cotton,
from the Indian farmers’ labour with an absolute security of not having
to pay him more than his present scandalously low remuneration.
(4) The authors of the government of India Bill point to the various
measures secured from time to time by the happy and privileged classes
—Indian and European— in India, always building up further rights
through the representation secured at each stage. Labour, having no
representation at all to build upon, the following is the movement of
wage progress in India from 1875. Please note wages are monthly, and
one Rupee may be considered average equivalent of 18 pence.
[The wages tables are not reproduced here].
The following was the reply to the above letter:
From Committee Office, House of Lords, August 18th 1919 addressed to
Shapurji Saklatvala Esq., Workers’ Welfare League of India etc., etc.
Sir,
Referring to your letter of the 22nd July, I have submitted your
application to the Joint Committee upon the government of India Bill.
I am directed to say that the Committee have already arranged for the
attendance of a representative witness on behalf of Indian Labour.
I am, Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
Edward Vigors
122
Appendix B to Chapter 7: ‘The Call
of the Third International’
‘The Call of the Third International’
The document reproduced below is undated, but it was clearly written some
time before the annual conference of the ILP held in Glasgow in the summer
of 1920.
Declaration of the Left Wing of the ILP.
Comrades—
We, the signatories to this letter, are of the opinion that we should not
be doing our duty either to our fellow-members of the ILP or to the
cause that we have at heart if, in this crisis in the history of the Socialist
Movement in Britain, we did not come forward and, through such
channels as are open to us, to state our case for the adherence of the
Party to the Moscow International.
We have neither the machinery of our own, nor freedom to use the
machinery of the Party for the purpose of replying to those— pre-
eminently the elected representatives of the membership— who oppose
adhesion to the International Communist Movement. We do not
complain that the National Administrative Council should give its
advice to those to whom it is responsible and by whom it has been
placed in charge of the administration, that the ILP should not affiliate
with the Third International.
We are jealous for the maintenance of that reputation which the ILP
acquired during the war for its steadfast opposition to the predatory
politics of capitalism and its unswerving determination to recognise no
truce with the enemies of the working class. During the war the ILP had
no use for the opportunist tactics of pro-war socialists of the type of
Arthur Henderson, Albert Thomas, or Emile Vandervelde, any more
123
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
than it had for the shuffling tactics of which Karl Kautsky was a
prominent exponent.
Though not founded on a theoretical Marxism, yet as if by instinct, the
ILP as a party held aloof from, and was hostile to those influences which
have made of the Second International a dishonoured corpse that now
pollutes the atmosphere of working-class politics.
Though not founded on a theoretical Marxism, yet as if by
accompanying Militarism ranged the ILP alongside of the Italian,
Serbian and Romanian socialists, and those socialist sections then
supporting Liebknecht in Germany and Lenin and Trotsky in the
Russian Movement.
Comrades, we have been and continue to be proud of our war record,
and we fear the associations which we are now bidden to accept and to
continue.
It was not to line up with the militarist socialists, and erstwhile
members of National Ministries that our men and women faced the
misunderstanding of their audiences, broke the ties of friendship and
old associations, and, in hundreds of instances, elected to remain in gaol
for years rather than obey the behests of their class enemies and
oppressors.
Comrades, the ILP refused to take the ‘safe and discreet’ course during
the war and scorned the dangers that lay in its path. After the struggles
of the war years, are we to think rather of coming successes in elections
and of the chances of office that may lie before us, or are we to continue
to face the blast of unpopularity and the ridicule and contempt of those
who cannot or will not strive to understand the true significance of
Bolshevism?
Our leaders— may we say once more those whom we have instructed to
serve us— oppose the very thought of sudden revolution. They point us
to the more practical course of gradual reform. They wish— in an evident
ignorance of our own nation’s history— to achieve the ideal of the
common ownership of the means of production and distribution (an end
of most revolutionary and drastic character) by the mere use of so-called
constitutional means, evolved for and by the advancement of capitalism,
and by landlords and plutocrats who themselves did not always adhere
124
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
to them in the fundamental crises of British history.
They speak, write and act as if the attainment of socialism was to be but
an incident in the ‘ins’ and ‘outs’ of parliamentary controversy.
They who have witnessed the shameless trickery of the last six years and
of the secret diplomacy which preceded these years; who have put their
pathetic trust in the broken reed of American democracy and in spite of
the political experience of the past generation, besought a Liberal
President of the United states, and an old-fashioned British aristocrat,
who had formerly been a Tory War Minister and Foreign Secretary, to
rescue the world from chaos; who have seen the League of Nations
change from an idealist’s vision to a bondholder’s nightmare of blockade
and intervention; who have before their eyes the pitiless murder of
Central Europe by slow starvation of its helpless women and children;
advise us to act and to organise as if the capitalists, when we knock upon
the door, will be off and say no more. They advise us to think and act as
if the propertied classes would acquiesce in their expropriation by
parliamentary enactments.
We do not doubt that the capitalists will tolerate the existence and obey
the enactments of a Labour government as it leaves them secure in the
possession of land and capital, but we have no use for such a
government. Willing the end, we hold that the ILP must will the means.
In this country the proletariat is an overwhelming majority. A bona fide
Labour government may serve industrial organisations as well as the
majority of the Public by what is known as the Dictatorship of the
Proletariat. Such a government need make no apology for the use even
of the Army in the interests of the working classes, just as under
capitalist control, the whole of the armed forces of the nation have been,
in the past and are still at the present time, used for the suppression of
spasmodic working-class revolts. Scottish comrades, in particular, will
remember the invasion of Glasgow by tanks and troops in the early part
of 1910 and the elaborate preparations made for the possible crushing,
by armed force, of the railway strike of 1919 will be fresh in the minds of
all of us. Sir Edward Carson’s threatened military operations to keep
under servile bondage the whole of Ireland, have silent lessons of their
own. General Dyer’s rough and ready methods adopted during what is
125
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
popularly known as the ‘massacre of Amritsar’ to bring into terror-
stricken subjugation 300 millions of Indians for the benefit of a few
thousand Imperial capitalist exploiters, is not a bad example of the
Dictatorship of the imperialist.
The Moscow International not only does not reject but it emphatically
endorses participation in parliamentary elections and entry into
Parliament, for the purpose of propaganda by exposure and of depriving
the capitalists of whatever obstructionist power there may be in the
domination of that institution. Lenin, in his reply to Kautsky’s
‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat’ explicitly states his views:
“Or take bourgeois parliaments. Is it to be supposed that learned Mr
Kautsky has never heard of the fact that the more democracy is
developed the more do the bourgeois parliaments fall under the control
of the Stock Exchange and Bankers? This, of course, does not mean that
bourgeois parliamentarism ought not to be made use of; the Bolsheviks,
for instance, made, perhaps, more successful use of it than any party in
the world, having in 1912-14 captured the entire Labour representation
in the fourth Duma.”
Or let us take yet another definite example: Madam Clara Zetkin, the
leading exponent of communism in Germany, and one of the founders
of the Spartacus Group, is an active participant in the Parliament of
Wurttemburg.
Whilst we are in favour of exploiting to the uttermost all the
opportunities of constitutional procedure, we believe the working class
will have no more use for Parliament under socialism than the
revolutionary plutocracy had for the supreme organ of feudalism, the
Privy Council. We believe that the whole structure of the state must be
dismantled and a new social organisation evolved, through which all
who render or have rendered useful social service may participate in the
administration of communal life. We definitely reject the principle of
occupancy of landed property— the basis of the present franchise— and
to require the establishment of a labour right to participate in the
administration of society.
We think that the Shop Stewards’ and Workers’ Committees set up on a
basis of organisation of industry, including bodies catering for
126
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
professional and home workers, constitute the beginning of the new
policy and we urge that it shall be the aim of the International Labour
Party, by all means in its power, to further the development of labour
unions on the above lines.
Such, Comrades, are the general principles and policy which we trust
will command your support and, in any case, enlist your sympathetic
consideration.
We are fully aware that, in adopting the only means at our disposal for
bringing our views before our fellow-members of the ILP we shall, in all
probability, be subjected to the kind of criticism which is usually
levelled at those who introduce disturbing elements into the realms of
official somnolence and complacency. This prospect does not in the
least perturb us. We do, however, ask those who, after full
consideration, find themselves in agreement with us, to strengthen our
hands by sending a brief note to such effect, addressed to Comrade Mrs
H. Furguson, 4 Addison Way, Golders Green, London.
Even more important, however, than indicating your individual views in
this way, is to get your Branch to make your voice and influence
effective in the ranks of the Party by well-directed action at the
forthcoming Annual Conference at Glasgow. This can be done by voting
steadily and solidly for the resolution which declares for disaffiliation
from the Second International and adhesion to the Third International.
This is the issue. Do not allow it to be side-tracked. Vote consistently
against shelving motions in whatever guise they may be presented.
Even a decision in favour of affiliation with the Third International may
be largely nullified if the carrying out of it is entrusted to a National
Council either hike warm or even actively hostile to Moscow. However
essential it is that such a resolution passed by Conference and the
personnel of the National Council should be in harmony and not in
hopeless antagonism, we have to bear in mind that the elections at the
Conference take place on previously fixed nominations, and also that
they are based on consideration of more than one question relating to
the Party. In view of this, it would be necessary to work continually
through your Branches to urge upon the NAC to carry out in spirit the
wishes of the Branches in regard to our hearty co-operation with the
127
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Third International.
We are yours fraternally,
[There follow 159 names as signatories including that of Shapurji
Saklatvala].
128
Appendix C to Chapter 7: The Terms
of Comintern Membership
The Second Congress of the Communist International resolves that the
following are the terms of Comintern membership:
1. Day-by-day propaganda and agitation must be genuinely communist
in character. All press organs belonging to the parties must be edited by
reliable Communists who have given proof of their devotion to the cause
of the proletarian revolution. The dictatorship of the proletariat should
not be discussed merely as a stock phrase to be learned by rote; it
should be popularised in such a way that the practical facts
systematically dealt with in our press day by day will drive home to
every rank-and-file working man and working woman, every soldier and
peasant, that it is indispensable to them. Third International supporters
should use all media to which they have access— the press, public
meetings, trade unions, and co-operative societies— to expose
systematically and relentlessly, not only the bourgeoisie but also its
accomplices— the reformists of every shade.
2. Any organisation that wishes to join the Communist International
must consistently and systematically dismiss reformists and “Centrists”
from positions of any responsibility in the working-class movement
(party organisations, editorial boards, trade unions, parliamentary
groups, co-operative societies, municipal councils, etc.), replacing them
by reliable Communists. The fact that in some cases rank-and-file
workers may at first have to replace “experienced” leaders should be no
deterrent.
3. In countries where a state of siege or emergency legislation makes it
impossible for Communists to conduct their activities legally, it is
absolutely essential that legal and illegal work should be combined. In
129
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
almost all the countries of Europe and America, the class struggle is
entering the phase of civil war. In these conditions, Communists can
place no trust in bourgeois legality. They must everywhere build up a
parallel illegal organisation, which, at the decisive moment, will be in a
position to help the Party fulfil its duty to the revolution.
4. Persistent and systematic propaganda and agitation must be
conducted in the armed forces, and Communist cells formed in every
military unit. In the main Communists will have to do this work
illegally; failure to engage in it would be tantamount to a betrayal of
their revolutionary duty and incompatible with membership in the
Third International.
5. Regular and systematic agitation is indispensable in the countryside.
The working class cannot consolidate its victory without support from at
least a section of the farm labourers and poor peasants, and without
neutralising, through its policy, part of the rest of the rural population.
In the present period communist activity in the countryside is of
primary importance. It should be conducted, in the main, through
revolutionary worker-Communists who have contacts with the rural
areas. To forgo this work or entrust it to unreliable semi-reformist
elements is tantamount to renouncing the proletarian revolution.
6. It is the duty of any party wishing to belong to the Third International
to expose, not only avowed social-patriotism, but also the falsehood and
hypocrisy of social-pacifism. It must systematically demonstrate to the
workers that, without the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, no
international arbitration courts, no talk about a reduction of
armaments, no “democratic” reorganisation of the League of Nations
will save mankind from new imperialist wars.
7. It is the duty of parties wishing to belong to the Communist
International to recognise the need for a complete and absolute break
with reformism and “Centrist” policy, and to conduct propaganda
among the party membership for that break. Without this, a consistent
communist policy is impossible.
The Communist International demands imperatively and
uncompromisingly that this break be effected at the earliest possible
date. It cannot tolerate a situation in which avowed reformists, such as
130
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Turati, Modigliani and others, are entitled to consider themselves
members of the Third International. Such a state of affairs would lead to
the Third International strongly resembling the defunct Second
International.
8. Parties in countries whose bourgeoisie possess colonies and oppress
other nations must pursue a most well-defined and clear-cut policy in
respect of colonies and oppressed nations. Any party wishing to join the
Third International must ruthlessly expose the colonial machinations of
the imperialists of its “own” country, must support— in deed, not merely
in word— every colonial liberation movement, demand the expulsion of
its compatriot imperialists from the colonies, inculcate in the hearts of
the workers of its own country an attitude of true brotherhood with the
working population of the colonies and the oppressed nations, and
conduct systematic agitation among the armed forces against all
oppression of the colonial peoples.
9. It is the duty of any party wishing to join the Communist
International to conduct systematic and unflagging communist work in
the trade unions, co-operative societies and other mass workers’
organisations. Communist cells should be formed in the trade unions,
and, by their sustained and unflagging work, win the unions over to the
communist cause. In every phase of their day-by-day activity these cells
must unmask the treachery of the social-patriots and the vacillation of
the “Centrists.” The cells must be completely subordinate to the party as
a whole.
10. It is the duty of any party belonging to the Communist International
to wage a determined struggle against the Amsterdam “International” of
yellow trade unions. Its indefatigable propaganda should show the
organised workers the need to break with the yellow Amsterdam
International. It must give every support to the emerging international
federation of Red trade unions which are associated with the
Communist International.
11. It is the duty of parties wishing to join the Third International to re-
examine the composition of their parliamentary groups, eliminate
unreliable elements and effectively subordinate these groups to the
Party Central Committees. They must demand that every Communist
131
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
proletarian should subordinate all his activities to the interests of truly
revolutionary propaganda and agitation.
12. The periodical and non-periodical press, and all publishing
enterprises, must likewise be fully subordinate to the Party Central
Committee, whether the party as a whole is legal or illegal at the time.
Publishing enterprises should not be allowed to abuse their autonomy
and pursue any policies that are not in full accord with that of the Party.
13. Parties belonging to the Communist International must be organised
on the principle of democratic centralism. In this period of acute civil
war, the Communist parties can perform their duty only if they are
organised in a most centralised manner, are marked by an iron
discipline bordering on military discipline, and have strong and
authoritative party centres invested with wide powers and enjoying the
unanimous confidence of the membership.
14. Communist parties in countries where Communists can conduct
their work legally must carry out periodic membership purges (re-
registrations) with the aim of systematically ridding the party of petty-
bourgeois elements that inevitably percolate into them.
15. It is the duty of any party wishing to join the Communist
International selflessly to help any Soviet republic in its struggle against
counter-revolutionary forces. Communist parties must conduct
incessant propaganda urging the workers to refuse to transport war
materials destined for the enemies of the Soviet republics; they must
conduct legal or illegal propaganda in the armed forces dispatched to
strangle the workers’ republics, etc.
16. It is the duty of parties which have still kept their old Social-
Democratic programmes to revise them as speedily as possible and draw
up new communist programmes in conformity with the specific
conditions in their respective countries, and in the spirit of (Communist
International decisions. As a rule, the programmes of all parties
belonging to the Communist International must be approved by a
regular Congress of the Communist International or by its Executive
Committee. In the event of the Executive Committee withholding
approval, the party is entitled to appeal to the Congress of the
Communist International.
132
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
17. All decisions of the Communist International ’s congresses and of its
Executive Committee are binding on all affiliated parties. Operating in
conditions of acute civil war, the Communist International must be far
more centralised than the Second International was. It stands to reason,
however, that in every aspect of their work the Communist International
and its Executive Committee must take into account the diversity of
conditions in which the respective parties have to fight and work, and
adopt decisions binding on all parties only on matters in which such
decisions are possible.
18. In view of the foregoing, parties wishing to join the Communist
International must change their name. Any party seeking affiliation
must call itself the Communist Party of the country in question (Section
of the Third, Communist International). The question of a party’s name
is not merely a formality, but a matter of major political importance.
The Communist International has declared a resolute war on the
bourgeois world and all yellow Social-Democratic parties. The
difference between the Communist parties and the old and official
“Social-Democratic”, or “socialist”, parties, which have betrayed the
banner of the working class, must be made absolutely clear to every
rank-and-file worker.
19. After the conclusion of the proceedings of the Second World
Congress of the Communist International, any party wishing to join the
Communist International must at the earliest date convene an
extraordinary congress for official acceptance of the above obligations
on behalf of the entire party.
19. All Parties belonging to the Communist International and those
which have applied for admission are obliged to convene an
extraordinary congress as soon as possible and in any case not later than
four months after the Second Congress of the Communist International
to examine all these conditions of admission. In this connection all
Party centres must see that the decisions of the Second Congress of the
Communist International are made known to all local organisations.
20. Those Parties which now wish to join the Communist International,
but which have not radically changed their former tactics, must see to it
that before entering the Communist International not less than two-
133
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
thirds of the members of their Central Committee and of all their
leading central bodies consist of comrades who publicly and
unambiguously advocated the entry of their Party into the Communist
International before its Second Congress. Exceptions can be made with
the consent of the Executive Committee of the Communist
International. The Executive also has the right to make exceptions in the
case of representatives of the centrist tendency mentioned in paragraph
7 -
21. Those members of the party who object in principle to the conditions
and Theses put forward by the Communist International are to be
expelled from the Party. The same applies in particular to the delegates
to the extraordinary congress.
134
CHAPTER 8
A Communist in Parliament
Selection as a parliamentary candidate for the Labour Party
despite membership of the Communist Party. Election to
parliament, 1922. The growing gulf between the Labour and
Communist Parties. First speech in the House of Commons.
When the Executive Committee of the Labour Party met in the House of
Commons on 18th October 1921, they had before them a list of fourteen
prospective parliamentary candidates submitted by local Labour Parties for
endorsement. It was “Resolved: That the candidatures be endorsed with the
exception of Mr S. Saklatvala, and that this be deferred for an interview with
the Secretary and the National Agent.” Subsequently the National Agent’s
Report included the following:
“Battersea North
“The Secretary and the National Agent reported upon an interview they
had had with the representatives of the Battersea Labour Party and Mr
S. Saklatvala, who had been selected as the Candidate for the
Constituency.
“Considerable discussion ensued as to Mr Saklatvala’s association with
the Communist Party, his attack upon the policy of the Independent
Labour Party in continuing its association with the Labour Party, and
his attempt to form a secessionist ILP Group favourable to affiliation
with the Third International.
“It was reported that Mr Saklatvala, in accepting the candidature for
Battersea North, has indicated his acceptance of the Labour Party
Constitution, with its usual implications.
“Resolved: That the candidature of Mr S. Saklatvala for Battersea North
be sanctioned on condition that he accepts the Constitution of the Party,
agrees to receive the Labour Whips if returned to Parliament, and to
abide by the decisions of the parliamentary Party.”
It is somewhat surprising that the Executive Committee of the Labour Party
135
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
should have endorsed Saklatvala’s candidature in view of his self proclaimed
and publicly acclaimed adherence to the Third International and his close
links with the Communist Party of Great Britain. It is true that his selection by
the Battersea Trades Council and the local Labour Party (who, at that time and
until 1926, were working in unison), had been numerically overwhelming and
enthusiastic, and that by this time there was no doubt as to his popularity in
the working class movement and socialist circles in general. Nonetheless, their
acceptance of him was surprising; especially as, so far as I can ascertain, he
was the only openly avowed member of the Communist Party to be adopted as
a Labour candidate at that time. This is confirmed by the extract from the
Report of the Executive Committee of the Labour Party at the annual
conference held in Edinburgh in June 1922, included as Appendix A to this
chapter.
So in this, as in so much else, Father became a ‘special’ or ‘isolated’ case; there
he was, representing the Labour Party while being an openly, self-advertised
member of the Communist Party; he was working for and with the working
class (and enjoyed their affection and esteem) while certainly not being born
into that class himself; he was working among United Kingdom political
activists whereas he himself was Indian and did not come to the UK until he
was thirty-one; and he fought vigorously and endlessly for India to be set free
from strangling imperialism, while not following the popular Congress Party
in India and the Gandhian theory of non-violence and the symbolic hand-
spinning routine advocated by Gandhi. He seems never to have floated on the
tide but was always swimming against the prevailing currents. Strange then
that he should have been able to embrace communism almost without
question. (He once said to a friend that he did not allow the least criticism of
what went on in Soviet Russia, as that would be for him like a sin against the
Holy Ghost!)
In order to understand why the Labour Party went to such pains in
considering the candidacy of Saklatvala and other members of the Communist
Party, it is necessary to understand the complicated and confusing
relationship between the Labour and Communist parties.
In March 1917 the revolution in Russia was greeted with optimistic rhetoric by
David Lloyd George, who set down the following Resolution in the House of
Commons: “That this House sends to the Duma its fraternal greetings and
136
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
tenders to the Russian people its heartiest congratulations upon the
establishment among them of free institutions in full confidence that they will
lead not only to the rapid and happy progress of the Russian nation but to the
prosecution with renewed steadfastness and vigour of the war against the
stronghold of an autocratic militarism which threatens the liberty of Europe.”
The Observer proclaimed:
“The triumph won by the Duma and the Army together for freedom and
modern government is one of the greatest and best things of time. The
breath of a new morning is felt not only by Russia but by all mankind.”
The Nation (a left-wing, Liberal organ edited by a one-time Fabian,
H.W. Massingham) wrote; “The greatest tyranny in the world has fallen.
The glorious news of the Russian revolution will send a thrill of joy
through democratic Europe. Liberalism has won its first great victory on
the moral battleground where all along the true conflict was going on.
Association with the Tzar was a curse and an incubus. Alliance with the
Russian people is a glory.” (These were strong words when one
considers that the Tzar was a cousin of our own King).
The Manchester Guardian was equally enthusiastic; it wrote:
“Revolution has before now proved a great mother of efficiency, and
there is no finer dynamic force than a passion for freedom. England
hails the new Russia with a higher hope and a surer confidence in the
future not only of this war but of the world.”
However, subsequent events in Russia dampened this first flush of euphoria,
and admiration gave way to fear that the introduction of socialism and
communism might be threatening to spread from Russia to Germany and
other countries in Europe, press and politicians alike became more wary, if not
actually apprehensive.
From its inception in 1920 the Communist Party of Great Britain had sought
affiliation to the Labour Party. Their repeated applications were constantly
rejected with a growing firmness, clarity and resolution.
In order to understand the gulf between the two parties, it is helpful to study
the ‘Explanatory Notes on the Second International versus the Third
International, the Soviets, and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat’ (published
in England and, alas, undated, although the Third International was
established at a conference of 33 delegates from 29 countries meeting in
137
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Moscow on the 29th March 1919; it is reasonable to assume, therefore, that
this document was produced shortly after that date). This document is
included as Appendix B to this chapter. I have quoted it at length (I trust not
at tedious length!) because, together with the ‘Manifesto of the Moscow
International,’ it forms the basis of the Communist creed which Saklatvala
whole-heartedly embraced and was to follow for the rest of his life.
In a list of ‘Tentative Proposals Providing for Transformation into the
Communist Party’, the twelfth proposal is that “the Provisional Executive to
make immediate application for affiliation to the Third International as the
Communist Party of Great Britain.” It was this affiliated party that Saklatvala
ultimately joined in the spring of 1921.
Doubtless it was a great relief and excitement to have his candidature
endorsed but he had to wait until November 15th 1922 for the General
Election. The Coalition government, under the Premiership of Lloyd George,
was to continue for a few months longer, but there were troubles brewing for
them: unemployment was increasing, housing for the poor was inadequate
and the ‘land fit for heroes to live in’ was falling far short of expectations. It is
not easy to maintain the demeanour of a hero when you are underfed, poorly
clad, are without a home and, perhaps hardest of all, without hope of getting
work, discarded by the community for whom you had so lately fought during
the war.
Meanwhile, Saklatvala continued to address meetings up and down the
country, by now spreading the gospel of communism instead of that of the
Independent Labour Party, as hitherto. In one of the letters addressed to my
brother in 1937, an ILP organiser described a typical weekend of Father’s,
recalling that he would address a conference of workers in the iron and steel
industry, speaking for anything up to two hours, in Middlesborough on the
Saturday, then on the Sunday he would address meetings in different villages
in the morning and in the afternoon; he was more at home, he said, when he
was speaking in a ring of people rather than from the wagon and he would
often talk to them in the open air for a couple of hours. He stayed in the home
of the writer of the letter, who says that on the Sunday evening he would talk
to him and his family, describing the terrible conditions of the workers in
India; then, in the small hours of Monday morning he would leave for the
station to catch a train to London in time to go to his office that morning. (I
138
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
still recollect sharing some of those weekend jaunts with him when I was
roused at what seemed to be the middle of the night to make the long train
journey home.
All of us children had curly hair which solicited admiration from strangers;
Father dreaded that we should become vain or conscious of our appearance, so
dressing me even in the small hours of the morning he tugged and tortured my
hair, scraping it into a tight pony-tail to make it unbecoming! A most painful
and tear-jerking process which I remember vividly). It was a gruelling
schedule and one he maintained week after week in different parts of the
country, virtually throughout his life. Arthur Field, his fellow worker in the
Workers’ Welfare League of India, writing in 1937 of this period, says: “From
1922 Sak became an even more active and unsparing propagandist, now died
deepest red, and publicly represented as ten shades deeper than that...”
Herbert Bryan, writing of this period, says that the Communist Party got an
active lecturer and propagandist because Sak became even more lavish of
effort in that Party than in the ILP.
The few weeks immediately preceding and leading up to the General Election
were politically tempestuous. The Allies, after the War, had redesigned states
and frontiers and this division of the spoils of war led to international
tensions. In late 1922 the situation in the Near East reached crisis point and
some of the newspapers of the day, when the crisis was, up to a point,
resolved, said we had been on the brink of another war. Added to the
international turmoil, unemployment at home had reached 1,300,000 (little
more than one third of the figure reached in the 70s and 80s by the Thatcher
Tories, but considered unacceptable in 1922).
David Lloyd George was losing the adulation he had previously enjoyed. It was
said that the coalition remained in little more than name and that the heart of
the Unionists was no longer in it. Austen Chamberlain made a dramatic dash
to Paris and hammered out an agreement with Poincarre; he had difficulty in
persuading the Cabinet to accept the terms, but in the end they did and the
immediacy was taken out of the Near Eastern perils.
Andrew Bonar Law, whose popularity within the Unionist Party was
increasing faster than Lloyd George’s was waning, had written an important
letter to the Times, which was said to be ‘of such a character that might well
oblige him to assume a position of political leadership.’
139
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
At last, at 4.15 on 19th October 1922, Lloyd George resigned. King George
asked Bonar Law to form a government; after he had been elected as Leader of
the Unionist Party, he agreed and a new Cabinet was formed.
Parliament was dissolved by proclamation on 26th October 1922 and the date
of the General Election was fixed for 15th November. Father’s election leaflet
lists the committee rooms and details of meetings to be held in the ward and
shows a portrait of him with a typical good-natured hint of a smile, looking
surprisingly benevolent and tranquil and serene for a reputed revolutionary!
On the opposite page, under the headline ‘Labour’s United Front’ the
following claims were made: “The only Party in Great Britain that is solid, and
stands solidly by the Workers, nationally and internationally. North
Battersea’s Candidate has support of all sections.” And under that the
following legends appeared:
“Mr Saklatvala has for years worked hard in the peoples’ cause, and is
intensely in earnest in the service he has undertaken. In Parliament he
would not only be an able and devoted servant of the workers of this
country, but his special knowledge of the economic conditions of
millions of our fellow subjects in India would compel attention to the
neglected conditions of workers in that part of the Empire. J.R. Clynes,
Chairman parliamentary Labour Party.
“Dear Comrade Saklatvala, The Executive Committee of the London
Trades Council endorse your candidature for North Battersea, and hope
that the Trade Unionists in North Battersea will work and vote for your
return to Parliament on November 15th. Your election by Battersea
workers to the House of Commons would be a message of hope and
encouragement to the awakening masses of our fellow workers in the
East. D. Carmichael, Secretary, London Trades Council.
“I appeal to you— to Labour, which I have always honoured, to women—
women workers and mothers, who are the greatest workers of all, I
appeal to my Irish fellow-countrymen and women in North Battersea—
support the Party and support the man, Saklatvala, that will be on your
side in the great struggle which is bound to come. Saklatvala spoke for
us, as a fraternal delegate, in the last Irish Labour Congress, and his
courage, wisdom and determination impressed us all. C. Despard,
Battersea’s late Candidate.
140
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
“Dear Saklatvala, The forces of reaction are making a strong bid for
supremacy, and only the return of the boldest defenders of the working-
class can prevent this. Your activities in the movement in the past
should more than justify that faith in you, which will secure your return
to Westminster. I see the workers in Battersea are rallying solidly to
your support, and I hope you are victoriously elected as their member of
Parliament. Arthur Mcmanus, Communist Party.
“Dear Mr Saklatvala, Permit me to wish you every success in your great
fight on behalf of the workers. The great and supreme need of the time
is a ‘Real Peace’, and I earnestly appeal to the Christian men and women
of your constituency to give you their wholehearted support, and I use
the word Christian in no narrow theological sense. Rev Herbert
Dunnico, International Christian Peace Fellowship.
“Dear Saklatvala, Battersea must be won for Labour. I wish you all the
success in the world in your fight. Clifford Allen, Treasurer ILP.
“Dear Saklatvala, I wish our other Indian friends had your foresight to
see the unity of interest between Labour in India and Labour in Britain.
I wish you every success in your candidature in North Battersea. K, S.
Bhat, Chairman, Workers’ Welfare League of India.
“I urge the workers and the unemployed of Battersea to declare war
against Poverty and Starvation in the midst of plenty by supporting
Saklatvala. Wal Hannington, National Organiser, National Unemployed
Workers’ Committee Movement.
“Resolution passed at the First All India Trade Union Congress, held in
Bombay on October 31st, November 1st and 2nd 1920: ‘That this
Congress places on record its grateful acknowledgement of the work
done by the Indian Workers’ Welfare League of London, and by Mr Sh.
Saklatvala on behalf of the Workers of India...’
“The Second Indian Congress passed this further Resolution: ‘That this
Congress requests the Workers’ Welfare League of India to ascertain
how the state of unemployment of British workers can be speedily
remedied by prompt co-operation between workers in India and those
of Great Britain and Ireland.’”
A friend of mine always used the expression, ‘He lies like an epitaph,’ to
describe a liar and I have no doubt that there are those who may feel that
141
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
election addresses run epitaphs a close second in the area of lying flattery. But,
on the whole, the claims made on Father’s behalf seem to have been pretty
accurate and truthful. (Appendix C to this chapter contains more of
Saklatvala’s election material).
There were three contestants for the North Battersea seat, H.C. Hogbin, who
was standing as a National Liberal, V.C. Albu, Independent Labour, and
Father, standing as the official Labour Party candidate. On November 8th, The
Daily Chronicle wrote that: “Battersea, always a storm centre of politics, will
be watched during the next seven days with close interest in constituencies far
removed from its own borders.” The paper described Mr Hogbin as a National
Liberal, supported by the Conservative organisation ‘North Battersea
Constitutional Association’. The Chronicle went on to say:
“Mr Saklatvala is a Communist, a supporter of the Third International
and a sympathiser with the Russian revolution. To do him justice, he
makes no secret of these leanings, but rather glories in them. Mr
Saklatvala, one would think, will prove too strong even for the Labour
element in Battersea.”
But this prognosis published by the Chronicle proved wrong, and, on 15th
November 1922, the following results were proclaimed from the balcony of the
Town Hall to the excited crowds seething in the street below, despite the raw
cold of a mid-November night:
Mr Saklatvala: 11,311
Mr Hogbin: 9,290
Mr Albu: 1,756
142
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Clipping: The Times, 16th November 1922
There was jubilation and jollification amid the throngs of people in the streets
of Battersea that night. Apart from the faith in the politics that Father stood
for, there was also no doubt a great personal affection for him as a man and
great warmth of feeling for him.
In the light of present attitudes, it is good to recall that the fact that Father was
an Indian did nothing to diminish the real love that thousands of Londoners
felt for him personally. He never stressed his nationality nor did he hide it. For
the most part, he ignored it, behaving, as he wished all people to behave, as a
human being, a creature of the universe, without constant reference to the
place where he happened o have been born. And he was accepted, respected
and loved for his personal attributes.
An article in Number 19 of ‘The Communist’ stressed the international
character of Saklatvala thus:
“Comrade Saklatvala, not only combines in his person tha aspirations of
Labour and communism, but by virtue of his kinship, the hopes of the
toiling millions of India; Saklatvala personifies the internationalism of
the great proletarian battle for emancipation.”
Indeed, it could have been embarrassing if, after all the brouhaha surrounding
the endorsement of his candidature he had failed to win the seat for Labour.
But he proved, after all, to be a good choice for the Labour Party. And five days
later, on 20th November 1922, he was sworn in and took his seat as a member
of the 32nd Parliament of the United Kingdom and Ireland. The General
Election had proved a triumph for Labour, which now had 142 seats in the
House, virtually doubling their representation in the new Parliament. They
were a jubilant and confident opposition during those climatically and
politically gray days of November. (Poor Arthur Henderson, who was
instrumental in rejecting many prospective candidates who were members of
the Communist Party, himself became a victim of the electorate and lost his
seat).
JUf. Hf.ipurji SnkJotv. b. tht : inline rHamod
M U.bour mtmbM lot- North Butler**, la the
Uind Indian ulto has cntenMl the of
Commons. HI* predecessor* tier* tb® late Mr
^ Naorojl, ulto woo CVoUvJ Finsbury
fai the Gtadstoniiio interest At the 1893 0 lection
by* bar* majority of three, and SItM.M.BIiow-
nsgjrrv**. wl»o woo Xocth-Ksst Bethnal Greta
lor the Cowry aiivp*. The only Indian who
bss sat in tl* House ot Lords is Lord SatUia.
143
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Clipping: The Times, 18th November 1922
It may be of passing interest to quote here a letter from a journalist, Mrs
Margarita Barns, written to Beram in 1937:
“My first meeting with your father was during the 1922 General Election
when he came over from his own constituency to assist Bertrand Russell
in Chelsea. I am mentioning this because the latter may have some
interesting light to throw; a greater contrast than these two speakers can
hardly be imagined— Bertrand Russell, quiet and conversational;
Shapurji Saklatvala, dynamic, rousing the meeting to an intense pitch of
excitement. Your mother was generally present at these meetings and
she will recollect them.”
It is disappointing that there is no indication that Beram acted on her
suggestion of getting in touch with Bertrand Russell, so his opinion of Father,
alas, goes unrecorded. But it is also clear from Mrs Barns’s letter that Mother
accompanied him on his electioneering campaign.
In The Communist of 25th November, Saklatvala wrote:
“If ever an election fight was a series of pitched battles it was at North
Battersea. Yet they were all bloodless battles full of good cheer, and
though a serious fight, it was at the same time a sing-song fight all the
way. The great plank in the opponent’s fight was to be the Labour
Candidate’s membership of the Communist Party.
“But this plank never even once balanced itself on 2 firm ends. More
loudly, more emphatically, and more repeatedly did the candidate
himself declare and fully explain his Communism than the adversaries
had the ability to do. What assisted the Labour candidate most was the
very genuineness of his Communist principles; as, in a truly proletarian
spirit, he got by his side members of all sections of the Labour
movement in Battersea to stand solid as a rock.
“The comrades of the ILP, comrades of Battersea Labour League,
comrades of Trades Unions and Labour Party wards and the Irish
without one woman or one man in the active Labour ranks making an
exception. All of them laughed at the scare-cry against their candidate
being a Communist and all of them seemed to trust him and work more
enthusiastically for him on account of the candidate’s openness in
144
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
adhering to his political principles.
“It was a substantial proof that genuine Communist candidates are
bound to enthuse the Labour and working-class voters and electors in a
higher degree than by any policy of timidity or half-heartedness.”
The 1922 Conservative government had as Prime Minister Andrew Bonar Law;
Stanley Baldwin was Chancellor of the Exchequer, W.C. Bridgeman was
Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Foreign Affairs were in the aristocratic
hands of Viscount Curzon, who was also Leader of the House of Lords. The
Secretary of State for India was Viscount Peel, but the man who was to loom
large in Saklatvala’s Indian interests was the Under-Secretary of State for
India, Viscount Winterton, and there were to be many exchanges between
them.
[Editor’s note: The 1922 General Election was the first in which votes for, and
seats won by, the Labour Party exceeded those for both Liberal parties]
There was also one Communist member, J. Walton Newbold.
On November 25th, the official newspaper of the Communist Party wrote the
following, under the heading ‘The Communist MPs:’
“In the name of the whole Party, the Executive Committee greets the
new Communist faction in Parliament, Comrades Newbold and
Saklatvala. They have a lonely fight to fight at present, but even one
good fighter can be enough to expose the workings of the system and to
show up the intrigues of the government...”
Clearly, the party was treating Father as another communist member and was
ignoring the fact that he had been elected as a Labour candidate.
145
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Photo: Shapurji Saklatvala and J. Walter Newbold
146
Appendix A to Chapter 8: Report to
the Labour Party Conference, 1922
Report of the Executive Committee of the Labour Party, Edinburgh, June 1922
...On January 15th Comrade Gallacher, of the Communist Party,
addressed a meeting in Edinburgh. At that meeting, speaking in regard
to the affiliation of the Communist Party to the Labour Party, he made
the statement that Mr Saklatvala, a member of the Communist Party,
had been endorsed as candidate for Battersea, and in reply to a question
Comrade Gallacher said that he had been endorsed on the same terms
as any other candidate but subject to the mandate of the Communist
Party.
The local Secretary thought that was rather strange, and in view of the
fact that they were likely to have a Communist member put forward as a
nominee, it was determined to write to Mr Henderson setting forth the
details and telling him that they were likely to be confronted in Leith
with having a member of the Communist Party nominated. (Mr
McQuater here read the letter which had been written to Mr Henderson
and Mr Henderson’s reply).
Continuing, he said that on receipt of the communication they went to a
conference feeling sure that everything was perfectly in order. Then they
had the bombshell thrown at them that, despite the fact that they had a
statement in writing from Mr Arthur Henderson that a member of the
Communist Party could be a Labour Party candidate, when they
received the nomination of Mr Foulis, they were informed that Comrade
Foulis could not be accepted. Mr Ben Shaw (the Scottish Secretary),
speaking on behalf of Mr Wake (the National Agent of the Party) said
that the nomination of Mr Foulis was not in order.
They in Leith pointed out that Mr Henderson was the National
147
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Secretary and that they had it on his authority that a Communist could
be a Labour Party candidate provided he was prepared to accept the
Constitution and the principles of the Labour Party. They then wrote to
Mr Henderson and pointed out that Mr Foulis, a member of the
Communist Party, had been nominated. Mr Henderson, however, did
not reply to this letter, but turned it over to Mr Wake, and Mr Wake said
that Mr Foulis could not be accepted because he was a member of the
Communist Party.
They then wrote back again to Mr Henderson and pointed out the
position which they themselves had created in Battersea, and said that if
it had been done in Battersea it could surely be done in Leith. They were
told, however, that Battersea must not be taken as a precedent. They
thought that that was rather curious, because if Mr Saklatvala had been
an unknown person, who had slipped through without it being noticed,
they would have thought probably the Executive had made a mistake
and that they did not know he was a member of the Communist Party
when they endorsed his candidature.
It had taken six months to get through this business. It was evident that
the only thing against Mr Foulis was his membership of the Communist
Party and for that reason alone he was turned down by the Scottish
Executive, and the National Executive hid behind the decision of the
Scottish Executive. He wished to know from Mr Henderson what was
asked of Mr Saklatvala. To this day, neither Mr Henderson nor Mr Wake
had answered that question. They had to go to the Battersea Labour
Party for the information, and they were told there that nothing had
been asked from them except what was stated in Mr Henderson’s first
letter. He wanted to draw attention to the treatment meted out to them
in Leith as against the treatment meted out to the Labour Party in
Battersea.
Rt. Hon. Arthur Henderson, MP, in reply said that Mr McQuater had
just told them that it had taken six months to reach a certain stage in the
negotiations with regard to this candidature. He could assure the
Conference it had been a fairly long six months so far as they at Head
Office were concerned. There was a long and difficult history connected
with this business. They had done their best to satisfy the friend who
148
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
had just spoken and those acting with him, but they found it absolutely
impossible. After all, they had got to keep in mind that in Scotland the
question of candidatures went, in the first instance, to the Scottish
Council.
This question came up at the Scottish Council and the Scottish Council
refused to endorse the candidature. The matter was then referred to the
Head Office, and a good deal of correspondence had taken place. In the
latter stages of the correspondence the Leith friends fastened very
severely on to the endorsement the Executive had given to Comrade
Saklatvala as a candidate for one of the Battersea constituencies. Their
friend seemed to think that Mr Saklatvala was endorsed because he
occupied some prominent position in connection with the Communist
movement. He could assure them he was entirely mistaken, and he was
going to give them the reasons why Saklatvala was endorsed.
Mr Henderson then read a communication of December 12th 1921, to
Mr Coltman, the Secretary of the Battersea Party, setting out the terms
on which the Executive had agreed to endorse the candidature of Mr
Saklatvala for Battersea North, stating that the candidate should appear
before the constituency with the designation of ‘Labour Candidate’ only,
independent of all other political parties, and if elected should join the
parliamentary Labour Party; that at the General Election he should, in
his election address and in his campaign give prominence to the issues
as defined by the National Executive from the general Party
programme; that if elected he should act in harmony with the
Constitution and Standing Orders of the Party.
On March 3rd 1922 a letter was received from Mr Coltman, addressed to
Mr Wake, stating that he had called a Special Meeting of the Executive
Committee of Battersea North, at which Mr Saklatvala was present, and
that the following resolution had been unanimously passed: ‘That this
Special Meeting of the Executive Committee of Battersea Trades Council
and Labour Party accepts the endorsement of the candidature of Mr
Saklatvala for Battersea North on the conditions laid down in the
communication from the Labour Party dated December 12th 1921,’ and
that Mr Saklatvala, who was present at the Committee, reaffirmed his
adhesion to the conditions laid down in the above-mentioned
149
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
communication and that a copy of this letter had been sent to Mr
Saklatvala, who would no doubt reply in due course.
Mr Henderson said the delegates would now see the position that the
Executive took up with regard to the Saklatvala candidature. If there
was anything wrong with that candidature, in his judgement it was not
from the standpoint of the Labour Party but from the standpoint of the
Communist Party. Mr Saklatvala who was a delegate sitting in that
Conference, knew full well that he was in exactly the same position as
one of their candidates as any of the 73 members of the House of
Commons, or any of the 400 candidates whom the Executive had
endorsed.
The Scottish people had not got the other people up to that position, and
he hoped that until they did their candidate would not be endorsed, as it
would be a most unfortunate thing for the Party if they were not going to
make all their candidates accept the same conditions, no matter by
which constituency they were nominated.
A Delegate asked whether it was not a fact that Mr Foulis had definitely
refused to sign the undertaking of the Labour Party
Mr Henderson replied that that was so, and that was why he said he
hoped they would all be made to toe the same line.
Another Delegate asked whether it was a fact that there were other
candidates who were members of the Communist Party whose
candidatures had been endorsed by the Executive.
Mr Henderson said there was not one to his knowledge, and they would
see that the Executive had exercised a great deal of care before it
endorsed the candidature at North Battersea.”
(Later on W. Windsor and J. Vaughan, both communists, were endorsed as
Labour candidates for Bethnal Green, North-East and South-West
respectively; neither of them won a seat in parliament).
150
Appendix B to Chapter 8 :
‘Explanatory Notes on the Third
International’
‘Explanatory Notes on the Second International versus the Third
International, the Soviets, and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat’
The Second International cannot be called a Socialist International, as is
proved both by its composition and the decisions it came to at its recent
meetings in Berne in January - February 1919 and in Amsterdam in
April 1919.
The Second International adheres to the ‘Social Patriotic’ Parties which
supported their capitalist governments during the war. These include
the British Labour Party; the Belgian Socialist Party, which even after
the war, is taking part in a new capitalist coalition formed since the
armistice; and the Social-Democratic Party of Scheidemann and Noske
in Germany, which in upholding the capitalist system, threatened by the
first revolution, even abetted the murder of Rosa Luxembourg, Karl
Leibknecht, Leo Yogehes and large numbers of other devoted socialists.
The Italian, Swiss, Serbian and Romanian socialist Parties refused to
take part in the Conference of the Second International at Berne, and
the Norwegian socialist Party, as also the German Independent
socialists opposed to the Noske- Scheidemann Party, have now seceded
from the same.
The Second International fails to recognise the conflict of class interests
created by the capitalist system, takes up a reformist, instead of a
socialist programme, and therefore it decided for:
(1) The League of Nations
Because of its failure to recognise the working class struggle, the Second
151
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
International proposed to give to the League of Nations the power to
rectify frontiers at any time and to control the production and
distribution of food-stuffs and raw materials throughout the world.
Such powers in the hands of a capitalist League of Nations, whether
composed of representatives of governments, or of capitalist majorities
in Parliament, would be used, as was done against the Workers’
Revolution in Russia, in every other country where their interest was at
stake.
(2) Free Trade and the ‘open door’ in the colonies.
The exploitation and practical enslavement of the colonial natives
notwithstanding !
(3) The Recommendation of: The establishment of an International
Labour Charter by the League of Nations.
They placed the framing of a Labour Charter in the hands of a League in
which employers predominate, and made a recommendation in line
with that which created the National Alliance of Employers and
Employed.
Russia:
On Russia three resolutions were before the Second International at
Berne. One of these by the French Communist, Loriot, upholding the
Bolsheviks, received no support. Even the mild resolution declaring that
the Conference had not sufficient material to judge of the state of affairs
in Russia, found favour with a very small minority only. The resolution
adopted by the majority, and supported by the British section, declared:
(4) Against the Soviets.
(5) Against the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
(6) Against socialism, with control of industry by the workers in it.
(7) For bourgeois democracy, including Parliament, with a government
responsible to it, and freedom of speech, press and assembly.
(8) For nationalisation of industry ‘under the control of the democracy,’
apparently through Parliament, like the Post Office.
Labour Legislation:
(9) The Berne Conference adopted a long reformist programme, which it
called a Labour Charter, and which included the following
152
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
commonplace provisions:
Compulsory primary education, free higher education.
Children under 15 years not to be employed in industry.
Eight hour working day, six hours for children between 15 and 18 years.
Wages Boards representing employers and employed to fix wages for
home industries.
A legal minimum to be fixed in sweated industries by Wages Boards,
equally representing employers and employed.
Unemployment to be reduced by linking up the Labour Exchanges, and
by unemployment insurance in each country.
A permanent Commission, consisting of an equal number of the
governments, which are members of the League of Nations, and of the
International Trades Union Federation.
This Labour Charter, drawn up by the pseudo-socialist Conference of
the Second International, formed the basis of the Labour Charter
afterwards adopted by the capitalist League of Nations.
The Permanent Commission of the Second International Meeting in
Amsterdam in April 919 issued further declarations:
(10) It made a point of demanding self-determination for Georgia,
Estonia and the Ukraine, at a time when the revolutionary workers of
those states fighting to unite with Soviet Russia, were being forcibly
suppressed, and their capitalists were making war on Soviet Russia,
which granted the independence of those states.
(11) It said that it ‘welcomes the introduction into the Covenant of the
League of Nations of the idea that peoples unable to stand on their own
feet shall be placed as wards, under the protecting care of the advanced
states.’
How blind is the Second International regarding the ‘protecting care’ of
capitalistic governments! Peoples of Ireland, India, Egypt, Persia, all
‘unable to stand on their own feet!’
(12) It declared that ‘the economic opportunities of colonies should be
open to all nations equally.’
It said nothing about the rights of the real and natural owners of
colonial lands!
153
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
(13) It demanded that Germany should make reparation for the war
losses of the Allies as required by the Wilson programme, characterising
this as ‘both necessary and just.’
(14) It demanded open diplomacy as employed by President Wilson
with regard to the differences between Italy and the Yugoslavs. It said
this method guarantees that the claims of the different nations shall be
settled strictly on the justice of each case and in the only way calculated
to assist the permanency of a world peace.
In that sentence is summed up the Second International’s disregard of
the realities of capitalist diplomacy and Imperialism, and of the fact that
under capitalism, international disputes are settled according to the
strength of the contending parties.
(15) It declared that it was ‘determined to oppose any peace which is in
contradiction to President Wilson’s 14 points, as those form the only
basis which will ensure an enduring harmony between all peaceful and
free democracies.’
Thus the Second International takes its stand with bourgeois politicians,
and asks only for mild reforms within the capitalist system.
The Third International:
The Third International was inaugurated in Moscow in response to the
call of the Russian Communists. To it the Italian socialist Party, as well
as Communist Parties in France, Germany, Austria, Holland, America,
China, Japan and other countries affiliated,
The Third International stands for:
1. The overthrow of capitalism and the substitution of socialism.
2. The abolition of the present parliamentary and Local government
system and the substitution of Soviets, which are composed of delegates
from the workers in industry and on the land, from the Army and navy,
from villages and hamlets where the population is too sparse to be
represented occupationally, and from women not employed in industry;
the delegates to be always subject to recall by, and to receive
instructions from, and report to those who elect them.
3. The dictatorship of the workers during the stage of transition from
154
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
capitalism into communism. This means that only the persons engaged
in productive work, who do not employ others for private gain, may vote
or be elected or possess political power. This certainly does not
disqualify any honest able-bodied person that does not wish to shirk
work. This dictatorship is necessary to prevent the capitalists from re-
establishing capitalism, and from committing sabotage against the
communist society. The dictatorship will last until capitalism is extinct
and the ex-capitalists have settled down to work in the communist
community.
4. The socialisation and workers’ control of the land and the industries.
This means that the land and the industries will become the property of
the nation as a whole, and that they will be administered by committees
of the people engaged in working in them.
5. Every member of the community doing useful work for the
community is entitled to assured sustenance, whether well or ill, old or
young, in accordance with the general standard of living. Thus, in Soviet
Russia, though complete communism is not yet achieved, the people are
moving towards equality of remuneration, and everyone is assured of
the usual wages during illness or in old age.
6. Everything to be free to the children. Education is free to all, and
there is maintenance for students; the age for leaving school in 1920 was
fixed at 20 years of age; though it may be that war conditions have
caused the postponement of this decree.
7. Self determination of peoples by a referendum vote of all the men and
women over 18 years of age in disputed territories.
8. Disarmament of the bourgeoisie in all countries, and arming of the
workers to protect the socialist communities from capitalist attacks until
capitalism has disappeared, when armaments will no longer be
necessary.
9. Abolition of all racial distinctions. Whoever goes to live and work in
Soviet Russia becomes a citizen of the Soviet state with full citizen rights
without regard to his or her original nationality, race or creed.
10. A world federation of communist republics.
11. The Third International, recognising the capitalist nature of the War,
155
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
voiced the demand that it should be ended on the basis of no
annexations, no indemnities, the right of the peoples to decide their own
destinies.
The Third International recognises the class war. It calls: ‘Workers of all
countries unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.’ The Third
International struggles directly for socialism.
The Second International advises the workers to make the best of
capitalism and to form councils of employers and employed.
The Soviets:
A good deal of unnecessary doubt is created in the public mind
regarding Soviets and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat by persons who
desire to continue as ‘socialists’ but who dare not be advocates of true
and bona-fide socialism that refuses to shake hands with capitalism.
First a good deal of capital is made out of the fact of the word Soviet
being a foreign word in all countries except in Russia. Once upon a time
the French word ‘Parliament’ must have equally shocked the forefathers
of the Anglo-Saxons of Britain, who ultimately adopted it as being the
most convenient one word that expressed a series of new ideas.
Translate the word as you may in different languages, but the purpose is
obvious that it is desired to express by this one word a new chain of
thoughts showing the marked and fundamental differences between the
new socialist organisation and the old parliamentary systems, viz.:
1. A genuine representation of all groups of people.
2. A full and continuous control over the representatives by the electors,
by the right of recall.
3. Full local autonomy of the people to appoint or dismiss their own
officers from their own ranks.
4. An unrestricted franchise to all honest workers of adult age (or those
physically unable to work) without sex or economic or social disabilities
as in British Parliament, or colour, race and creed bar, as observed in
America and British South Africa.
It is obvious that those who use the short term ‘Soviet’ as against
‘Parliament’ desire to express in one word these fundamental and
several other principles whose superiority over existing systems cannot
156
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
be denied. Every country and people may adopt a different word for
expressing the same idea, but before this is done, the word Soviet is the
most convenient to use, and best understood internationally.
To argue that what is good for Russia is not good for Britain, and what is
good for Britain is not good for China, is the very negation of
international socialism which seeks a new international mode of life to
replace capitalism which, in its essentials, is uniform and universal in all
countries of the world.
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat:
These words can also be moulded into a number of misinterpretations.
The fundamental and political social changes in British life, e.g., the
Reformation, the Civil War, The Glorious Revolution, the struggle for
parliamentary Reform, Chartism, the memorable Peterloo and the rise
of the Unions, all give historical proof of what was done in these Isles
during periods of transition from the existing to a new state of affairs.
No settled human society lives without a final arbitrament.
We have dictatorship in the United Kingdom at every turn of life. The
real issue is, shall it be a dictatorship of the minority over the vast
masses, or shall it be the dictatorship of the wish of the masses over
those who desire to disagree and overturn the plans of the masses. We
have examples of both kinds in daily life in Great Britain. Every public
meeting is under its chairman, who in his turn is under the dictatorship
of the meeting in certain matters. Grown-up patients in a hospital are as
much under the restrictive orders of the staff as children in a school or
inmates of a prison.
The masses here recognise generally the value of primary education,
and the proletariat fines, punishes and compels the parents in minority
who do not believe in universal education. Similarly we have penalties
for persons driving on the wrong side of the road, or spitting in public
places, and disagreeing minorities are not at liberty to ‘exercise freedom’
in matters which the proletariat consider to be of communistic
advantage. In our entire economic and political life we are absolutely
under the Dictatorship of a powerful minority.
During the transition period when: a) the supreme power is to be passed
out of the hands of a privileged minority and handed over to the masses;
157
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
and b) when the poor down-trodden masses, accustomed to life-long
bondage and hereditary submission are to be called upon to remain self
assertive and undiminished in the new ideology, it becomes evident to
the thinking mind that the super-imposed as well as the self-imposed
dictatorship of the proletariat over the selfish opponents as well as over
the diffident and relapsing proletariat themselves would be needed.
The raising of the marriage age in India by the almost common consent
of the people, or America going dry by the vote of the majority does not
denote that enforcement of these principles will no longer be needed.
The hue and cry against the dictatorship of the Proletariat in new
socialist states is at best futile, and at worst, malicious.
158
Appendix C to Chapter 8 :
Saklatvala’s Election Addresses of
1922
Saklatvala’s General Election addresses of 1922
North Battersea Division.
Vote for Saklatvala the Labour Candidate.
Polling Day Wednesday November 15th 8am to 9pm
Electors of North Battersea,
I DO know where I am, though Mr Bonar Law does not. After our folly
in the 1918 Election you ALL do know where you are today and where
you want to be!
Our gullibility in December 1918, has shut down workshops to a million
and a half honest British Workers, with degrading cuts in wages to four
million others. Our Tory- Liberal Rulers have devastated three fourths of
Europe, and have antagonised practically the whole of Asia, and wonder
why we are workless.
If elected, I pledge myself to the fullest extent to support the well-known
programme of the Labour Party. To meet the changing positions which
will arise, I promise to present myself to my Labour electors, about once
a month, to ascertain their wishes on all fresh issues.
The spirit of the Labour Programme may be summarised as under:
1) A Levy on massed fortunes exceeding £5,000, for the specific purpose
of unloading the weight of National Debt. Mr Bonar Law said, to a
deputation in the House, on November 14th 1917, ‘My own feeling is
that it would be better, both for the wealthy classes and the country, to
have this Levy on Capital, and reduce the burden of the National Debt;
159
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
that is my own feeling.’ TAXATION, FOOD PRICES, and HOUSE
RENTS, can NEVER be LOWERED OTHERWISE.
2) A more just distribution of the INCOME TAX, relieving the Middle-
Class wage-earner, and abolition of TAXES ON FOOD and the
necessaries of life.
3) Prompt NATIONALISATION of such Industries, to begin with, where
grievous harm by private ownership has already been proved. This
would lead to re-organisation of all Industries and International
Commerce, and ABOLISH UNEMPLOYMENT and periodical Reduction
of Wages.
4) An immediate transformation of the Imperial relations of England
with Ireland, Egypt, and India, and an equitable and honest inter-
relationship with all the peoples of the world through a UNIVERSAL
INTERNATIONAL MACHINERY, in place of the present
conglomeration of armed nations.
5) Immediately to provide for the long-neglected social and intellectual
needs of the people, in the shape of STATE HOUSING, the highest
possible type of STATE EDUCATION, and ample financial provision for
Aged People, Mothers, Widows, Orphans, Ex-Service victims, and
Locked-out Workers.
6) To strengthen the House of Commons, elected on an ADULT
SUFFRAGE for Women and Men, and to strengthen the Working-Class
Organisations, as effective weapons of defence of mass rights. At present
the two Houses of Parliament are used as convenient tools against the
people by Political and Financial cliques, and the Organisations of the
Working Classes, really representing the majority of the population, are
continually defrauded and defied. THE TRADE UNION CONGRESS OF
1869 STARTED WITH A DEMAND FOR DIRECT INDUSTRIAL
REPRESENTATION, WHICH IS YET TO COME.
Do not listen to the cry of ‘Wolf, Wolf,’ against the Capital Levy. Large
Banking Accounts in the name of wealthy persons or Corporations, built
on the strength of the War Debt, really represent unscrupulous
profiteering out of the Nation’s need during the War. On this Debt the
Nation is called upon to pay £340,000,000 yearly. We are asked to
saddle posterity with this unbearable burden, not because we gave them
160
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
any New Houses, Schools or Hospitals, but because our Rulers, from
1914-1922 unscrupulously allowed a few Contractors and Merchants to
use the War as a grand opportunity and medium for making exorbitant
profits. This SURELY is not an honourable deed. Such National Loans
are starving industries, and while the Unemployed Workers receive NO
WAGES, the INTEREST on War Loans of the rich continues. We are all
paying this £340,000,000, or £8 per head, man, woman and child in
the shape of High Taxes and High Prices for Food, Clothing, Rents,
Railway Travelling, Postages, etc. The Labour Party is determined to
alter this.
What is this talk of driving away Capital from the Country? Selfish rich
people refuse to share the burden of the Nation in proportion to their
surplus wealth, are threatening to take their Capital abroad, and are
blaming the Labour Party for their action! This attitude justifies the
claim of Labour to place all Capital under National Control, so that it
may not be permitted by the Nation to go abroad, to the detriment of
workers at home, in search of Cheap Labour and bigger Dividends in
other parts of the world. In the 2 years, 1920-1921, for instance,
£280,000,000 were invested in new concerns in India out of the huge
war fortunes made in the British Empire, against the highest figure of
£12,000,000 in any pre-war year. The individual British owners of
Capital in the jute industry have opened 76 jute mills in India (of which
98% are under British control), in order to earn 100% to 400%
dividends out of the toil of the enslaved cheap Indian Labour (paid 14s
to 38s per month), and they shut down the jute mills in Dundee. Similar
instances of British capitalist rivalry against home industries can be
quoted from authentic records. Capital under individual control of
British Magnates, is going out to South America, to India, to China, to
Africa, and even to Spitzbergen, in search of HIGHER PROFITS and
LOWER STANDARDS OF LABOUR.
Those who talk of confiscation of the Rich Man’s Property by the Labour
Party are the very persons who, by enforcing unemployment, have
driven millions of Workers to the Pawnshop, and, in consequence, had
all their past savings confiscated.
We are not concerned with the catch-cries of the Liberals or the Tories,
161
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
either in or out of the Coalition. During Strikes, Lock-outs,
Unemployment, Wage-cuts, the Workers of Britain have found not the
slightest difference between Liberal and Tory Employers. From 1906 to
1914 the Liberals were in power, and after completely and wickedly
mismanaging our International Affairs by secret intrigues and through
commercial rivalries, they told us in August, 1914, that they had created
a condition which, in their own words, MADE WAR INEVITABLE.
Human beings were led to destroy human life on a larger scale than the
wild beasts of the forest are ever known to have done.
Then, in 1918, the Tories, assisted by the Liberals, promised us
Universal peace. They pitched this country twice on the battle-front,
once, against Russia, and then against Turkey, without the slightest
regard for the constitutional voice of the People, till LABOUR rose equal
to the occasion, and twice declared that the wishes of the masses to stop
the war should prevail, and LABOUR’S VOICE DID PREVAIL
They gave to Ireland a peace perched on bayonets; they practised
towards the Egyptians a deception of the most flagrant type; they gave
to India the massacres of Amritsar, the Moplas, and the Sikhs, and have
locked up thousands of innocent men and women in British gaols.
The freedom of these countries becomes necessary in the interests of the
Working Classes of Great Britain, who have to depend in the future
upon the raw materials and food stuffs from these countries, which can
only be obtained by a free and friendly interchange, without the
interference of Imperial Militarism.
They talk of the CLASS WAR at home, and they charge Labour with a
desire to foment Class War. While artificial Classes exist it is beyond
human power to stop Class War, and we have today, as we always had,
the perpetual Class War in out midst. The victorious few are compelling
the many millions to live in indescribable slums, on insufficient or
unhealthy food, to be ill-clad, when we all know the needs of the human
body. LABOUR IS OUT TO STOP THIS CLASS WAR, by the effective
method of eradicating this Class distinction.
If we demand full Trade Union maintenance for the innocent
unemployed, there is an outcry of ‘Bolshevism.’ All high state Officials,
as Lord Chancellors, Privy Councillors, Cabinet Ministers, and also
162
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Directors of private Companies, are not paid by the time clock. They
serve Society whenever they are called upon to do so, and they do what
they please with their whole time whenever they are not required by the
Society to give any services, yet all the while they get their full
maintenance wages. The selfish society that devised Dividend
Equalisation Funds are now revolting against any system of Wage
Equalisation Funds which could support the unemployed. The root
cause of many social evils of the unfortunate girls and juvenile offenders
is economic environment, and rarely moral depravity.
The outcry against the Labour Programme to relieve the lower middle-
class earner from his Income Tax on unliveable incomes of £250 a year
is discreditable. The wage-earner’s machinery for earning his salary is
his body and his mind, and why should he not be permitted to maintain
that in proper order before he begins to pay his Taxes, as the rich man is
allowed to deduct his maintenance charges on industries?
Beware of arguments used against Nationalisation as carried out by
bureaucratic officials, who are of the class pledged to prove its failure,
and who treat Nationalisation as an opportunity to favour Contractors
and Profiteers.
A genuine NON-CAPITALIST SCHEME OF NATIONALISATION will
give full benefits to workers and consumers.
May I be permitted to intrude upon your attention with a little personal
note? You will, of course, be told I am a foreigner. The Liberal Party
selected the first Indian MP, the Conservative Party selected another
one, and recently, the House of Lords received in their midst the first
Indian Peer [Satyendra Prassano, First Baron Sinha, took his seat in the
upper house in February 1919 as the Under-Secretary of State for India].
Will it be wrong if the Labour Party, which is the Party of International
Brotherhood, tries to do the same? My heart has never been foreign to
the Labour Movement of this country, and there is not a part of
Scotland, England, Wales, or Ireland, where there is a live Labour
Movement, where I have not gone during the last ten years to give my
free services to the Local Co-operative Branches, Trade Union Meetings,
Labour Parties, Independent Labour Parties, or Communist Parties, as
one of their own members.
163
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
In spite of desperate and ludicrous efforts on the part of Liberals and
Tories alike to split the Working Class Movement into hostile fragments,
THE LABOUR PARTY IS TODAY THE ONLY PARTY IN GREAT
BRITAIN THAT STANDS SOLIDLY TOGETHER. The scare-cry of
‘Communist,’ which is sure to be raised by eleventh-hour leaflets, will
fortunately not frighten the Electors of North Battersea, as your two
faithful servants on the London County Council, some half-a-dozen
members of your Borough Council, and your retiring Mayor, have not
proved themselves false to you, and have recently secured re-election as
a token of your confidence.
During my strenuous work in the Labour Movement, I have always
remembered one thing, that I have to fight for and to work for, the
Working Classes, as through them alone I see a chance for a truly
humane world. It is my turn today to ask for your support, and it will be
your turn after giving me that support on the 15th November to
command my further services.
Yours very cordially,
SHAPURJI SAKLATVALA.
455 Battersea Park Road, London SW11
Mr Saklatvala’s LAST WORD
To the Electors of North Battersea.
Will you have further Wars, and International Hatreds, or International
Fraternity and Peace and Progress at Home?
From 1906 to 1914 Liberals were in power and had every facility at their
disposal.
They did not make universal friendships— their policy made War
inevitable. They did not restore the Land to the People. They did not
give freedom to Ireland. They did not administer justice in India (Lord
Morley deported without trial nine honourable citizens against whom
nothing has been proved). They did not give Educational facilities to the
Children of the Poor as existed for the Children of the Rich. They
pretended to safeguard Trade Unionism, but used the legislative
machinery and the Forces against the Workers as freely as the Tories do.
164
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Their Candidate wants Profits and Royalties to remain, which means
reduced Wages and Salaries.
The Liberals today take credit for wishy-washy reforms, old age
pensions, insurance, etc. These measures, more showy than useful, were
the work of Mr Lloyd George, whom the Liberals now expose in his true
colours, just as he exposes their impotency and hypocrisy.
The Liberal Candidate for North Battersea claims that the Industries of
Britain have been built up by capitalists, and he says, ‘Heaven help us if
the wash-outs get hold of them!’ Workers of Britain, with your superior
workmanship YOU have built up British Industries, and when you take
control of them periodical stoppages will cease, unemployment
disappear, and British Industries generally become stronger.
Then there is the tricky argument: ‘Ah!’ say the Liberals, ‘We do not
mind the Labour Party MANAGING them— we dread the Communists
and socialists seizing them.’ The following is the official text of the
objects of the British Labour Party: ‘To secure for the producers by hand
and brain the full fruits of their industry... upon the basis of COMMON
OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION...’ The following is
the simple definition of the word ‘Communism’, as given in the Concise
English Dictionary by Charles Annandale. MA, LLD: ‘Communism— The
system or theory which upholds the absorption of all proprietary rights
in a COMMON INTEREST: the doctrine of a community of property.’
The Liberals and the Conservatives do not like to see a community of
property. They flourish on a community living in slums, on high rents,
and on low wages, for the benefit of landlords, profiteers, and royalty
owners...
Mr Hogbin comes to you on behalf of the National Liberal Association,
with an avowal to support Mr Lloyd George. It is rather a rash guess on
the part of my friend to suppose that North Battersea wants to support
Mr Lloyd George, whose dishonourable methods have ruined this
country and shocked the whole world. When Conservatives inside and
outside Parliament openly denounce a Liberal-Tory combination, to say
the least it is a political imposture for candidates here and there to
pretend that they represent two quarrelling factions. Self-help alone will
save the People! We do not want benefactors and charity-mongers, and
165
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
MPs who are Masters of the People. We want Servants of the People
who do not claim superiority for their brains, or profits and royalties for
their few select brethren.
Voters for North Battersea! Come along now and Vote for the
Representative of the People’s Labour Party,
S. SAKLATVALA
Wm Louis Coltman, Election Agent
166
CHAPTER 9
A New Voice for the People
First parliamentary speeches on unemployment,
imperialism, private enterprise.
The newly-elected Saklatvala lost no time in making his maiden speech, which
he delivered on Thursday 23rd November 1922 during the debate on the
King’s speech that laid out the Conservative government’s plans for the new
session of parliament.
Saklatvala’s speech is quoted in full below:
“The hon member who introduced the Motion thanking His Majesty for
his Gracious Message said that as a newcomer he felt like a schoolboy.
In a similar manner, and perhaps in a higher degree, I shall offer my
apologies to you, Sir, as well as to the House, not only for tonight, but I
am afraid, for all the nights that I shall be here. I am afraid that I may be
misunderstood if I do not acquire what is known as the traditional
manner of the House of Commons.
“We, the 142 [Labour members] who have come here, and I who was but
yesterday with the people of Battersea, know the voice and the minds of
the people, and we, who have talked outside upon politics and
governmental affairs, wish now that the genuine bona fide human voice
be talked inside, and I would therefore appeal to you, Sir, to realise that
if we are found especially wanting in certain mannerisms or if our
phraseology is not up to the standard, it is not for want of respect or
want of love for any of you, but simply because we of the people shall
now require that the people’s matters shall be talked in the people’s
voice.
“His Majesty’s Gracious Message referred to the question of
unemployment. Unemployment prevails largely in the constituency
which I represent. The first immediate thing, that is perhaps not of so
great consequence from a strictly political point of view, but is of very
great consequence from the immediately psychological point of view, is
167
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
the unfortunate attitude, at the beginning, of the Prime Minister.
“The Prime Minister says that he believes in the division of labour, and
also in assigning responsibility to Ministers. All that may be true. But it
is sometimes welcome to the heart of the British people to be heard by
the Prime Minister. If they want a deputation is the Prime Minister to be
the judge concerning whether a matter is an appropriate matter for the
Prime Minister to hear or not, when the people who may be
unemployed, who may be hungry, may have a special desire to see the
Prime Minister himself?
“I make one last appeal to the Prime Minister. I agree with the Prime
Minister, perhaps with a different viewpoint, that it would have been
equally futile for the unemployed to have an interview with the Prime
Minister or any other Minister. But it is just as well that they should see
each other, for though no useful result could have been produced by an
interview with the Prime Minister himself there is something in human
life which is satisfying if not satisfactory, and if the Prime Minister
would only have realised that it was a most satisfying measure, if not a
satisfactory measure, to have seen a deputation of the unemployed, I
believe that he would have spared the country a lot of unpleasant
thoughts, and I think that even now it may not be too late.
“Coming to the larger problem of unemployment, the Mover and
Seconder of the Address pointed out in their speeches what was wanting
in the Message. One of our hon members referred to the position in
Central Europe. Somebody referred to the collapse of the exchanges,
and reference was made to the high taxation. All that may be true, but
are we to sit in this House and keep on analysing today the condition of
yesterday, and going on analysing tomorrow the condition of today? Are
we not determined once for all to analyse the root causes of it all and to
apply the remedy which would remove the real evil?
“It is perhaps an easy thing today to talk of the collapse of the exchanges
on the Continent of Europe. Have we no right to ask those who have
been ruling this country since 1906 until today as to what it was which
brought about the conditions that produced the collapse of the
exchanges of Europe? Have we no right to ask in a similar manner our
friends and the government that is responsible today and the
168
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
government which was responsible during all these strenuous years of
trial throughout the world as to how and why those conditions were
produced? It is not satisfactory for us to say today that we are suffering
because of these conditions. How are the lower exchanges to be set
right?
“One of our speakers said that the continent of Europe had been
impoverished because capital had gone abroad. Who took it abroad? Is
it a sign of disservice to the country for enterprising men to take their
capital abroad? If that is so, what can be said of private enterprise in
Britain itself, and those British citizens who are taking abroad British
capital produced by British working men, day after day and year after
year?
“May I point out to the right hon gentleman, who today deplores the
condition into which Europe has been brought by these greedy private
enterprisers taking capital abroad, and ask him why over 74 jute mills
have been erected in Bengal by British millers and capitalists who had
got the capital produced with the hard toil of the workers of Dundee,
with the result that today we have shut up shop in Dundee and our
workers in Bengal are working at from 14s to 38s a month and
producing for the owners dividends of from 150 per cent, to 400 per
cent?
“Out of the 124 coal companies in my country, India, I know that 102
have been opened out by British capitalists who have taken capital
abroad for these enterprises. If these are the root causes of private
enterprise, may we ask our friends not to sit down and not to wait until
the great calamity overtakes this country altogether, but to learn lessons
from what has happened on the continent, and remove the causes which
brought about the conditions which all of us agree are not worthy of any
intelligent and civilised human race?
“One of my colleagues referred to the position of the trade with India,
especially the textile trade, and I understood the Seconder of the Motion
to refer to it in passing, showing how it had become impracticable for
the Austrians to buy Indian hides and the Germans to buy any Indian
cotton, and so forth. I want the House to note, carefully that the loss of
trade with India is due to two separate reasons.
169
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
“One has been the desire of the, government in this country, who have
always prided themselves as a constitutional nation and government, to
try in the outside world the most unconstitutional method, namely, of
dictating government to peoples in various parts of the world from
outside. No Britisher would for a moment tolerate a constitution for
Great Britain if it were written outside of Great Britain by people who
are not British. In a similar way the constitutions for Ireland and India
and Egypt and Mesopotamia should be constitutions written by the men
of those countries, in those countries, without interference from outside.
“But there is another great cause, and I wish the House to understand it
clearly. That cause is private enterprise. The story of private enterprise,
with all its glamour and its seductive tale, has gone out from these
shores to India, and it is the rivalry due to the spirit of private enterprise
which is responsible now, and will be responsible in the future, for one
country depriving the workers of another country of their legitimate
livelihood. It is the growth of this private enterprise, of these large
corporations and trusts, these huge industrial concerns in India, which
is beginning to tell its tale upon the workers of this country. I wish to
make no secret of it. The cotton industry of this country is bound to
suffer from this two-fold evil, namely, the political sulking of the people
of India with the people of Great Britain, and the spread of private
enterprise and of the so-called legitimate privileges of the private
enterprisers.
“The Indian private enterprisers have learned to ask for protective
duties, for high dividends, for low wages, long hours, and all kinds of
privileges which private enterprise in this country has claimed for 150
years. It is this combination and the spread of the cult of private
enterprise by the political bosses in this country which is working the
min of the workers of this land.
“In reference to the Near East there was a passing reference in the
Address. I would not like to embarrass either the government or this
House in dealing with the problem of the Near East or the Far East in a
thoroughly different manner from that of the past if it be intended so to
do. If the government merely intend to deliver different forms of
speeches from those of the past government they will fail as the last
170
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
government failed.
“I remember the time when a British Prime Minister had to stop a
Catholic procession from forming in the streets of Westminster because
the Protestants would not allow it. If that happened in the streets of
London not many years ago under a Liberal government, I think that
the less the Britisher talks of taking care of the minorities in Armenia or
Mesopotamia or Ulster or Southern Ireland or anywhere else, the better
it will be for him. There is quite enough for him to take care of in the
minorities here. There are many minorities.
“This morning we heard of the Prime Minister’s letter to the press
relating to the unemployed who are now a minority in this country. The
right hon gentleman exposes them as so many criminals. One reference
in that correspondence was to the fact that these men had been dubbed
criminals by a legal process in this country, because they dared to
belong to political organisations which at present happen to be in a
minority. The way in which that minority has been protected has been
by bringing into operation legislative machinery, and by bringing the
men for trial before judges or magistrates whose chief capital in the past
has been party politics and party bitterness, which have made them
incapable of dealing out justice.
“With this one-sided political machinery men have been tried and have
been put into gaol. Then the Prime Minister says, ‘This is a set of
criminals.’ That is the way in which the minority in this country is
protected by the majority on the question of the right to express political
opinion. I think the Prime Minister knows very well that had it not been
for several of these prosecutions and persecutions he would not today
have had at his back the number of supporters that he has.
“In reference to Ireland, I am afraid that I shall strike a jarring note in
the hitherto harmonious music of this House. I am well disciplined and
trained in the general principle of the Labour movement, namely, that
the happiness of the world depends on international peace, and that
international peace is possible only when the self-determined will of the
people of each country prevails in each country. I deplore greatly those
elements still existing in the Irish Treaty that are not compatible with
that great and wholesome principle. It is no use denying the fact, for we
171
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
shall not in that way create peace in Ireland.
“As a House we say that we are giving this Irish Treaty with a view of
bringing peace to Ireland, but we know that it is not bringing peace.
Either we are actuated by the motive of restoring thorough peace in
Ireland or we are doing it as partial conquerors in Ireland.
“Everyone knows that the Treaty has unfortunately gone forth as the
only alternative to a new invasion of Ireland by British troops. As long
as that element exists the people of Ireland have a right to say that the
very narrow majority which in Ireland accepted the Treaty at the time,
accepted it also on this understanding— that if they did not accept it the
alternative was an invasion by the Black-and-Tans of this country. The
Irish Treaty all along continues to suffer in Ireland from the fact that it
is not a Treaty acceptable to the people as a whole.
“If it were possible in some way in the preamble of the Treaty or by an
Act of this House to allow the people of Ireland to understand that their
country’s constitution is to be framed by them as a majority may decide,
and that the alternative would not be an invasion from this country, but
that this, country would shake hands with Ireland as a neighbour,
whatever shape or form that government took, it would be quite a
different story. Otherwise, whatever we may do, however many treaties
we may pass, however unanimous the British may be in their behaviour
towards Ireland, Ireland will not be made a peaceful country.
“As in 1801 England gave them a forced Union, so in 1922 England is
giving them a forced freedom. We must remove that factor. Unless we
do so we shall not be giving to the Irish the Treaty of freedom which we
have all decided mentally that we are doing.
“When I say so, I put forward not my personal views but the views of 90
per cent, of those Irishmen who are my electors. They have pointed out
to me that, whereas under the threat of renewed invasion the Dail only
passed the Treaty by a majority of barely half a dozen votes, Irishmen
who are not under that threat— Irishmen who are living in Great Britain
—have, by a tremendous majority, voted against it. As long as those
factors continue to exist, the Irish Treaty is not going to be what we— in
a sort of silent conspiracy— have decided to name it. The reality will not
be there. The reality is not there.
172
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
“Before I conclude I wish to refer to one point which is conspicuous by
its absence from the King’s Speech. If in the Empire, this House and this
government is going to take the glory of the good, they will also have to
take the ignominy of anything disgraceful which happens outside this
country. This government may not be responsible. This House may not
be responsible. The people of this country may not be responsible. Yet
there is something like a public voice and public prejudice, and if this
government and this House are proud of their association with the
Colonies and the Empire, this government and this House will also have
to satisfy this country as well as outside countries, why the policy of the
South African government, in hanging and shooting workers, was
permitted and was kept quiet.
“We are still calling Ireland a part of this Empire, and it is only last week
that four young working-class lads, without an open trial and without
even fair notice to their families, were shot dead. Even on the night
before, their families were told that everything was all right, but on the
following morning, when the mother of one of them went to convey a
bundle of laundry to her son, she was informed that the poor boys had
been executed.
“These acts might be described as the acts of independent governments.
Either these governments are independent or they are part of this
Empire. If they are part of this Empire, then the government in the
centre of the Empire must see to it that a policy of this kind does not go
without challenge and without, at least, protest from this House, if
nothing else can be done.
“Our relationship with Russia is also a subject conspicuous by the
absence of any mention. We hear of the revolution in Italy; we hear of
Mussolini, the leader of it, and we have seen Mussolini’s manifesto. He
does not care for the Italian Parliament, nor for the majority in it. He is
going to rule the country by 300,000 most obedient and faithful
followers who are fully armed. Here is a revolutionary.
“But our Foreign Secretary is sitting in consultation with him. Our
Foreign Secretary is shaking hands with him. We do not object on the
ground that the Italian government is a revolutionary government.
Why? Because the revolution in this case belongs to another class.
173
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
“We have the case of the King of Serbia. His Majesty King Edward for
two years and more refused to have any dealings with him because he
had slain the monarch who sat on the throne of Serbia before him. Yet
we are friends of Serbia. We honour King Peter; we respect him; we call
Serbia our Ally; we co-operate with the Serbians, yet if the monarch in
Russia has been assassinated, or something had happened, we refuse to
join hands with the people of Russia on that account. Why? Because in
the Serbian Revolution class interest was topmost. In the Russian
Revolution the mass interest came topmost.
“I do not for a moment suggest that any of us in this House are
purposely and consciously behaving in a dishonest manner. But the
unfortunate part of every human life is that we are unconsciously the
victims of many suppressed prejudices which are inborn in us and are
traditional. Now we are face to face with a situation in this world in
which, if we are not determined to burst out of these time-worn
prejudices and boldly take a new place, if we are not prepared to push
forward not only the good but the rights— even the sentimental rights—
of the masses of humanity, into the forefront, and if the traditions, the
family interests, the class privileges, the profits and dividends of private
enterprise, are not set in the background, then neither this Ministry nor
any other Ministry will cure the, evil, though they may deliver as many
speeches as they please, upon it.”
At least on the question of unemployment, Saklatvala’s maiden speech upheld
the official policy being pursued by the Labour Party. Ramsay MacDonald,
leader of the party and of HM opposition, had said earlier in the debate:
“May I appeal to the Prime Minister, apart from the larger issues of this
debate, to do something to allay the agitation that is gathering up in
connection with his refusal to see the deputation from the unemployed
men who are in London now?...
“I urge upon him that it is his duty to give the most tangible and simple
proof... that he understands the distressful position in which these
people are placed, and the best way to do that is not to take up a merely
red-tape attitude but... to see these men and to tell them what his
desires and intentions are...
“We have a system that blocks the road with Rolls Royce cars when the
174
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
rt hon gentleman became Leader of his Party, and which, the next week,
blocks the Strand with processions of unemployed.”
However, on the question of Ireland, Saklatvala did not toe the party line. The
most pressing business before the House was the urgent second reading of the
Irish Free State Constitution Bill on 27th November 1922. In the King’s speech
opening the session a few days before, it had been stated that:
“A Constitution for the Irish Free State having been passed by the House
of Parliament established under the Irish Free State Act of the last
Session of Parliament, and it being required by the terms of that Act
that the Constitution should come into force by December 6th 1922, His
Majesty had summoned His Parliament to meet in order that the
legislation necessary to give effect to that Constitution and to make the
provisions consequential on the Establishment of the Irish Free State
might be at once submitted for the approval of the House.”
The MP for West Ham, David Margesson (Unionist), seconding the Address to
the King, had said of Ireland:
“The present session has been made necessary... in order to bring to a
conclusion, so far as this Parliament is concerned, the policy in relation
to Ireland which was left incomplete by the late government. Some of us
who have now for the first time entered this House may, perhaps,
congratulate ourselves that there is no occasion to express any opinion
as to the wisdom or otherwise of that policy.
“It has been publicly acknowledged even by those who most strenuously
opposed the Treaty, that there is no longer any course open to this
House, consistent with statesmanship and honour, other than to carry
out the Treaty which the last Parliament accepted by an Act now on the
Statute Book. Our part in the transaction is, in fact, purely formal. We
have merely to seal and deliver an instrument already signed on behalf
of the English people.”
The approval of the House of Commons was being taken for granted and the
completion of the necessary formalities were being treated as a fait accompli.
It was not the first time, and was assuredly not to be the last, that decisions of
historic importance, crucial to the peace and stability of the world, were to be
taken under the pressure of a self-imposed time limit, so that neither the
decision-makers themselves nor the general public had time to realise all the
175
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
ramifications of the decisions being taken. Alas, we are still suffering violence
and death in the streets of Ulster and, causing far greater outcries, even in the
cities of mainland Britain. More time alone would not necessarily have been
enough; time, wisdom and vision were needed, and all these also appear to
have been in short supply.
Rising to open the debate on the Irish Free State Constitution Bill, Bonar Law
expressed the government’s regret that the time for dealing with it was so
short, adding:
“I think that any government elected would have realised that if a really
great calamity was to be prevented, this Bill should be passed by the 6th
December... the circumstances are such that, in my belief, so far as the
government are concerned... our liberty of action is circumscribed
within the narrowest limits.”
Ramsay MacDonald, speaking as Leader of the Opposition, in associating
himself with the sentiments expressed by Bonar Law, said:
“The less said about this Bill the better. Criticism is useless, sympathy is
dangerous. All that this House can now do in relation to Irish
government is to implement its part of the agreement and allow the Bill
to become law...”
Despite the time limit, the debate became a lively one when Colonel Gretton, a
Unionist member, painted in lurid though imprecise terms a picture of rape,
pillage, shootings, sabotage and chaos amounting to “anarchy and civil war” in
southern Ireland. He was frequently challenged by opposition members, who
asked for names of the places involved, and who questioned the veracity and
accuracy of the horror stories related.
It was quite late in the debate when Saklatvala rose and, new boy as he was,
dropped something of a verbal bombshell in the form of an amendment:
“I beg to move, to leave out the word ‘now’, and at the end of the
Question to add the words ‘upon this day three months’.
“I realise the unpopularity I am courting in taking this step, but it was
distinctly understood between my electors and myself that they did not
wish me to back up a Treaty which was based upon coercion, and was
signed under duress. I do not now speak on behalf of the Labour Party
in this House. I wish that to be made perfectly clear. I maintain that,
176
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
perhaps as a purist, I adhere in the amendment to a principle that the
Labour Party has laid down, namely, the principle of self-determination.
It is not to be understood that I do not share the wishes or the prayers of
my chief, nor is it to be understood I have not the same desire as my
colleagues, but I must frankly admit that I do not share their hopes.
“I believe that the only cure will come when either this government or a
future Labour government tells our friends in Ireland that they have a
right to a genuine and bona fide self-determined voice of their own.
Unless that is done, neither the Treaty nor the Constitution nor the Bill
now before the House is likely to do what we all, against our convictions,
hope that they may do.
“We talk of a Treaty. Hon. members on all sides of the House have
written and spoken in unmistakable terms in expressing their views that
the unfortunate part of the Treaty was that the signatures were obtained
under duress. I feel that duress was undoubtedly there, and the
unfortunate fact was that it need not have been there. If matters had
been left to the free will and the good sense of the people, the result
would have been quite different from what it has been.
“We have heard today quotations and illustrations of similar enactments
for colonies and dominions of the Empire. Is there any real parallel
between those Constitutions and the hopes and desires of the people of
the countries concerned and the hopes and desires of the Irish people?
Was Australia not rejoicing and waiting almost to a man and woman for
the day when her Constitution would be confirmed by this House? Was
not South Africa, after a great war and defeat, gratefully awaiting the
day when the Treaty would be passed and the little minority of the
republicans in a constitutional manner would be permitted to express
themselves as a minority? The people of Canada, too, were determined
to have their Constitution and to work it.
“The case of Ireland is different. It is no use our pretending that it is not
so. We cannot adopt the policy that by driving deeper into the soil the
roots of a cactus, and by carefully covering it with soil, roses will grow
later on.
“I pay my homage to the great spirit that reigns in this House today, and
to the great spirit that pervades the people who sent members to
177
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
represent them in this House. I admire that spirit at its full value. In
spite of all the bitter differences in the past, we are determined to come
to a genuine and sincere unanimity upon this question. Were we settling
the matter in dispute here among ourselves, that spirit would give us a
permanent solution; but our unanimity does not affect the disunity in
Ireland, and that point does not seem to be before this House as
emphatically as it ought to be.
“Was there ever an instance in the history of treaties where immediately
after a treaty had been signed, two out of the five signatories had to
repudiate their signatures as not having been put down with a bona fide
and conscientious intention? The hon member for Spen Valley (Sir John
Simon) was pointing out to us the great improvement which has taken
place since the Treaty. I am sorry to hear argument of that kind being
advanced on rather imperfect observation.
(Hon. members: “Hear, hear!”)
“The imperfect observation which I wish to point out is not referred to
in the spirit of the hon and gallant member for Burton (Col. Gretton). It
is quite in another direction. In the first instance, what is the
constituent assembly which has sent us this document? Soon after the
Treaty and, apart from anything that was ever contemplated at the time
of the Treaty, a truce was entered into between the factious parties in
Ireland creating an artificial Dail to tackle the problem of the Treaty. I
take no sides with either of the Irish parties, but I maintain that truce,
or that promise to observe a truce was not fair to the people of Great
Britain, and it was certainly more than unfair to the people of Ireland.
“Under the truce it was decided to call an artificial constituent assembly,
and when the moment came, even that truce was not observed, and the
so-called constituent assembly cannot on any bona fide and sincere
principle of self-determination, be accepted as a truly and properly
elected Dail representing the people of Ireland in the ratios and
proportions in which they stand. I was present at the last great Labour
Conference in Ireland; I attended its sittings in Dublin and I saw there
written down in black and white and heard proclaimed from the
platform: ‘A plague on both your houses!’— on both parties, both the
pro-Treaty and the anti-Treaty party.
178
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
“I have heard it declared that Irish Labour, well organised, is
determined to work for a workers’ republic. These are the views that are
being expressed, and the Labour Party in Ireland is bound to come into
its own, however much hon members may jeer or laugh. The
Republicans are there; it is no use denying that they are there in very
large numbers, and it is extremely doubtful, if coercive measures were
not taken, whether they would not prove themselves to be the majority
of the people of Ireland. These facts cannot be ignored, and they cannot
be buried or covered up.
“We are assured by the Prime Minister that, according to Mr Cosgrave,
Ireland is only waiting for the Constitution to be carried through this
House, and that they are going to work it out. Mr Cosgrave knows that
he had to shoot four human beings a week ago, and he has since had to
take another life by violence— that of Erskine Childers. He knows that
the prisons of Ireland are to be filled with thousands of men, and even
some women, without charge and without trial. He knows that Ireland is
to be prepared to receive this Constitution, not with joy and flags and
illuminations, but with martial law, penalties and threats, imprisonment
and ships waiting to depopulate the country. (Interruption)
“I will ask you, Mr Speaker, to save me from those who are pretending
to be my friends. I appeal to the Prime Minister and I appeal to the
House.
“Once, in 1801, our predecessors and your forefathers thought they had
worked a great political trick and a mighty political charm when with
great unanimity in Dublin and London they brought about the Act of
Union. For 120 years that Act of Union has only produced distress to
Ireland and disgrace to this country. I, as your friend— not as your critic
nor as your opponent— feel that I am in conscience bound not to be a
party to a bigger and greater mockery.
“Until the Labour Party in this country comes into power, until genuine
self-determination is permitted to the people of Ireland, there is going
to be neither peace nor fidelity to the Treaty, nor the carrying out of the
Free State government, nor any of the ‘tosh’ we have been hearing of
late.
“I am speaking in a most difficult position. I know I seem to be the
179
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
friend of my enemies and the enemy of my friends, but time and history
will prove my case. I shall not be at all sorry or shamed to say that even
if you were all unanimous, I stood aloof and away from you. Within five
years this House will find the necessity for undoing this unanimous or
semi-unanimous Act after more distress and more suffering.
“Let me predict that it will be the Labour Party sitting on those benches
which will have to afford real freedom to Ireland. Instead of merely
expressing a pious opinion, I take my courage in my hands and, true to
my convictions, I move this amendment in order to create an
opportunity for myself to vote against this Bill.”
The next day, the Manchester Guardian, under a sub-heading ‘Indian
Communist Amendment’ reported that:
“After an amendment of an obviously irresponsible character (moved by
Mr Saklatvala and seconded by Mr Newbold), for the rejection of the Bill
had been negatived without a Division, the Bill received its 2nd Reading
without challenge.”
Small wonder that Father said he was taking his courage in both hands! He
had been in the House barely a week, he had been accepted by the Labour
Party, if not reluctantly at any rate cautiously; the opposition were to support
the Bill— and he stood up to move an amendment so that he would have an
opportunity to vote against it. That needs a very special courage in my view;
unlike a heroic act of courage which evokes praise and adulation, this kind of
courage evokes derision, rejection and the jeers of your peers; it isolates you
from your colleagues.
Father was to show this particular brand of courage in full measure
throughout his political life; he was often alone; he may have been sometimes
in a small minority but he was never one of the crowd. It is a form of courage
that, lacking it myself, I admire almost more than any other. (Of course I
cannot claim to be objective in this judgement— he was my father, after all).
Writing four years after this event, Shapurji recalled:
“...After a whirlwind campaign in the Election of 1922, I found myself
ushered in to the Assembly of Westminster. My critics who were jesting
and jeering and my friends who were smiling in doubt, confidently
looked forward to my immediate conversion to the requisite mentality
180
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
for the Mother of Parliaments...
“I came fresh from a constituency where most of the Irish electors were
annoyed by the proposed Irish settlement, and, as in duty bound, I
attempted to act up to the expectations of my democratic voters.
Ridicule, contempt, sneers, showered from all sides and a look of ‘cut
him out— he’s no good to us in this assembly’ seemed to be on the faces
of all my colleagues. The heavy frowns were not limited to reactionary
capitalists, for [Ramsey] MacDonald’s and [Arthur] Henderson’s frowns
were even more severe.”
After Saklatvala’s contribution to the debate on the Irish Free State
Constitution Bill, Colonel Wedgewood (who had left the Liberals to join the
Labour Party in 1919, and who was to develop a House of Commons friendship
with Saklatvala as time went by) expressed the hope that he would not proceed
with a division. He said the only result would be that he would find himself in
the lobby with a large number of members with whom he really had no
possible point of agreement. He went on to say:
“I ask the hon member for Battersea to consider what would happen if
he got his way and if this Bill were rejected. It would then appear that
Great Britain having signed the Treaty is determined by the voice of a
new Parliament to cancel the Treaty. I agree with the hon member there
was a great deal which was undesirable in the way in which the Treaty
was brought about. But whether those methods were desirable or
undesirable we cannot now possibly go back upon the Treaty which was
signed or fail to carry out to the letter the terms and the obligations into
which we entered. The speech to which we have just listened, a very
eloquent speech, ought to have been delivered not here but in the Dail
[Irish parliament]...”
Saklatvala fought as strenuously for freedom for the Irish people as he did for
the people of his own land, India. To him it was one and the same fight against
imperialism. The fact that Ireland lay so close to the shores of Britain made it,
in his view, no less a victim of imperialistic aggrandisement. (Is it not strange
that the Isle of Man, closer to the UK mainland, should have its own
Parliament, while a United Ireland could not enjoy the same right?)
Apart from his strong personal views, he had given an undertaking to the Irish
constituents in Battersea to do all in his power to further the granting of self-
181
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
determination to the people of the whole of a United Ireland; and he was not a
man to break a pledge once given.
Th* Executive of th« Labour Party deridiT
lut night' to tvaxnmcnd a party nvsetiiir to
retasa the applitaUon ol Mr. Newbolg, the
Communist rnmbtr, |nr the party Whip. The
Kiccntivo also aoddofi to review Mr.
KiuLlatvislr.'s rolattoDaliip to the party. Oo
Moctlay Mr. SaklotTala moved the reieetlon
of tlio Irish Coaatitution Bill, although aa
an approved Lslxxur Party . candidate bn
ahonlil havn benn corn ml Usd to tbe ratification
of the Irah Treaty,
Clipping: The Times, 29th November 1922
On Monday 4th December 1922 the Trade Facilities and Loans Guarantee
(Money) Bill was to be considered by the House of Commons in Committee
under the Chairmanship of Mr James Hope. The motion before the House was
a composite and complicated one, and the debate did not start until 11 o’clock
that night. Several opposition members asked: a) that the several items should
be dealt with individually; and b) that decisions of such moment should not be
made late at night when members were tired and, consequently, unable
perhaps to make sound judgements. But the debate went ahead as planned.
The first subject was The Trade Facilities Act, followed by discussion on a loan
to Austria, and then on to the Treasury guarantee of interest on a loan for
public works in the Sudan. It was on this last item that Saklatvala
subsequently spoke, at about 3 o’clock in the morning of the 5th December.
Stanley Baldwin, Chancellor of the Exchequer, in introducing the Motion, had
stated:
“It is to guarantee a loan to be raised by the government of the Sudan
for completing the great dam which is to aid in the irrigation of a large
part of the Sudan. The scheme is of greater magnitude than was
originally contemplated and like all large schemes prices have increased
and the estimates are considerably beyond any that were considered
reasonable when the scheme was first propounded; but it has been
investigated more than once recently by an expert sent out by the
Treasury to advise, and his report is that, even after the expenditure of
this increased sum, when the scheme is finished, the benefit to that
country will be so great, that there should be no doubt of the Sudan
itself being able to pay out of its revenues the interest required on the
loan.
“The whole object, or the main object is to enable cotton-growing to be
182
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
proceeded with in the Sudan. The Sudan, I am told, is one of the best
fields in the world for growing long-staple cotton, and I am also told, by
those who know the cotton trade, that there is a real fear that the supply
of raw cotton in the world today is not sufficient for the world’s trade,
and unless immediate steps are taken to increase the growing capacity
of the world for cotton, great disaster will overcome, if not the cotton
trade of the world, at any rate the cotton trade of this country, which is
dependent entirely on imported cotton.
“I am told that the area that it is proposed forthwith to irrigate is such
that it will be possible to grow 70,000 bales for shipment each year to
Lancashire. But as it may be possible when the dam is finished to bring
under irrigation a vastly increased area to that already proposed, there
seems no reason why the Sudan in... perhaps the not too distant future,
will bid fair to become one of the great cotton-growing districts of the
world...”
J. Walton Newbold (Communist) spoke first on the Austrian issue and then
took up the subject of the Sudanese loan. Throughout his speech he was
barracked and interrupted; when he appealed to the Chair to keep order to
enable him to speak, the Chair admonished him for criticising the Chair! In
spite of the general schoolboy rowdiness he managed to continue:
“Hon. members do not crowd those benches and support these
Resolutions in the interests of liberty, in the interests of equality, in the
interests of justice, but in the interests of the Stock Exchange, in the
interests of the bankers, in the interests of the Manchester Chamber of
Commerce (interruption), of the bill-brokers, of the cotton
manufacturers, of the whole capitalist class that you are rolling up in
your forces upon those benches. It is noticeable that this barrage project
has the approval of a Committee presided over, I believe, by Sir R.M.
Kindersley.
“Sir R.M. Kindersley, curiously enough, happens to be the Chairman of
Lazard Bros.; Lazard Bros., curiously enough, have half their share
capital held by S. Pearson & Sons and Clive Pearson. These people are
the building contractors engaged upon the dam.”
At 2.40am, Commander Kenworthy (Labour) stood to move an amendment
deleting the proposed guarantee:
183
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
“The Sudan is not the only country which has long-staple cotton...
Sudan is not a safe field for British investment. I would not put my
money there and I would not advise anyone else to put theirs. Egypt
today is a smouldering volcano... The regime of martial law, which I am
sorry to see is supported by British bayonets, is bound, sooner or later,
to lead to trouble in that country. In these circumstances I regard it as
very foolish to guarantee loans in that country... and it is not fair to ask
the British taxpayer to guarantee this large sum of money...
“The employment supplied in this country will not be at all comparable
with the amount of money we are to guarantee. It may and will
provide... employment in the Sudan, but at the present moment one of
the grievances that is felt up and down the country is that our
government has been extremely slow and lax in providing useful work
for our own unemployed.”
Mr P. Johnston (Labour), one of the Scottish MPs, then asked if the Sudan
project was to be in private or in state hands. “Is the British public,” he asked,
“being asked to guarantee large sums in order to ensure profit for private
business in this country?”
The night and morning were far advanced when Saklatvala rose to make his
contribution to the debate:
“I wish to call the attention of the Committee to the dangerous principle
underlying the proposals put forward tonight, and I strongly take the
view that the hon and gallant member for Central Hull (Lt. Commander
Kenworthy) has put to the committee regarding this Sudanese scheme.
There was a time when there were two parties in the House, both of
which were interested in making loans and monetary grants. One was
interested in taking up one group and the other was interested in taking
up another group. There is now a third party [the Labour Party], and it
has come to analyse the fundamental principle of these enterprises.
“We want to know something more than the people in the past wanted
to know. It is very curious. We have sat here today a round of the clock
and we have not had one word about the glories of private enterprise.
Private enterprise has a wonderful power of abrogating rights. It puts
forward schemes for the benefit of humanity, but asks the unemployed
to strive and fight when it is a question of really being enterprising and
184
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
adventurous and taking risks.
“Then private enterprise is gone. From Plymouth to Pimlico there is not
a word of private enterprise. I submit that the plan as put forward by the
government today in the shape of a guarantee is a worse burden upon
the taxpayer and, if I may be allowed to say so, a more dishonest burden
than if it were one thing or another.”
(An hon member: “You pay your money and you take your choice.”)
“If it were private enterprise and the private enterprise was asking the
sanction of this House to invest money, and if we were merely feeling
angry at them at securing in this House a share of future profits, that
would be one way of getting the profit. If we are placing the burden
upon the taxpayer and telling the taxpayer to take the profit, or lose out
of it, that is another thing; but this clever device of a guarantee means
that if profit ensues, private enterprise will get it, and if it is a loss the
taxpayer will pay it. We are not so simple. We see through the scheme. It
is a very unsound looking scheme of guaranteeing. It means the profits
are mine and the losses are yours.
“There is another point in regard to the former part of this Resolution.
We were not told if any unconstitutional guarantee was exacted from
the borrower, from the Sudan. We were told that if this House
guaranteed 3V2 million pounds to begin with, and subsequently went
further into it, this country required 70,000 bales to begin with of long
stapled Egyptian cotton.
“Why, may I ask, do we feel so certain that cotton grown in somebody
else’s country, by the people of Sudan, shall for ever fall into our lap as
our own property? We have not even got a Parliament in Sudan to
smother and blackmail, and this is an unconstitutional law just as in the
case of Vienna. We shall be told, perhaps three years hence in this
House to sanction an expedition to Sudan to save our guarantee. That
instrument of blackmail upon any Parliament in the Sudan does not
exist.
“The only weapon that does exist in the hands of the loan controllers is
the British Army and the British Navy, and we shall one day be told that
we have pledged our honour, we have granted the loan, we have
promised safety to the investors, and we shall want to sink a few
185
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
hundred millions to butcher the Sudanese to get our wretched money.
We are engaged in a new departure of human butchery. That is, again,
history repeating itself.
“What right has this House to take it for granted that the poor Sudanese
shall bend their necks and backs and go on growing cotton year after
year? There is one very serious point. In the midst of starvation, hunger,
distress, and death, many of the unemployed in this country heard the
hollow talk of sympathy. Where is that sympathy tonight? It is all very
well to give us misleading speeches when introducing new schemes, but
we have got before us our past history. Let us know how in the past this
country has been misled into the cultivation of raw material abroad, and
how the workers of this country have been cheated out of the little work
they had.
“Take jute. The workers of this country were always told that by the
production of jute in Bengal, and by the British government possessing
it, the work of the workers in the Dundee works would be guaranteed for
ever. At no time have the workers been so cheated by those who have
the militaristic control. They were told that the people of India would
never use for their own consumption more than 500,000 bales of jute.
“The people of Dundee used to work about five to six times that quantity
of jute in the Dundee mills. But in 1921 the Dundee mills were
compelled to do their work on only about 600,000 bales, while the jute
mills in Bengal, where the jute grows, worked upon 4,300,000 bales, or
seven times as much as the Dundee workers. The workers in India were
overworking, and the workers in Dundee had to shut up their shop.”
(Hon. members: “Why not?”)
“I do not say why not, but when you were talking about jute production
in India, did you tell the workers of Dundee it was to stop their work
and start it in India? I am not asking whether yes, or whether no. I am
asking you something more difficult than that. I am asking you to be
honest. I am asking you to take the full history of finer cotton in India.
“You started the production of finer cotton in India, and what
happened? Today, with the larger quantities of cotton, the Indian mills
not only want to extend their industry, but demand that a prohibitive
duty shall be placed on their goods. You might again ask, ‘Why not?’
186
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
That is not the question we are discussing tonight. Do you, then, tell the
workers of Lancashire that one of the possibilities of growing finer
cotton in India would be to curtail their work and increase their
unemployment?
“I ask you today— I am not indulging in larger questions, but taking this
matter by itself— I am asking you today as men of the world, why do you
not realise that this very cotton, this long-staple cotton growing in the
Sudan, will be a temptation to some of you, which in the past you never
had the strength of character to resist, to take Sudanese slave labour
and start your spinning mills in the Sudan?
“You will do it as you have done it all over the world. You will grow long-
staple cotton, and then when you come to grips with the operatives of
Lancashire, you, as you have done in the past, will be the people who
will start cotton mills in the Sudan and shut up Lancashire. That is your
history, which you cannot deny. You want to cover it up by talking of
guarantees and investments and so on. I have heard of a gentle scheme
where a paper was read by a government expert sent out by the
Manchester University, about a detailed plan of improving the staple
cotton in India, and one part of it was that the Indian farmer, the ryot,
does not count. He is of no account, and one of the clauses of that
scheme is that if the farmer fails to mix his seeds and spoils the profit of
some Lancashire ‘boss’, there shall be imprisonment for him up to 6
months.”
The Chairman: “I cannot see the relevancy of all this.”
Mr Saklatvala: “I was just showing the possibilities of what will happen
in the Sudan. I am now coming directly to the point. In performing
these two enterprises, you will have to fall back on human beings in the
Sudan. You will have to rely upon their labour to grow cotton out of
Nature. You will fall back on your methods of exacting toil out of human
beings to suit your profits, and you will then introduce similar Clauses
of imprisonment for farmers of the Sudan, and everything to secure you
long-staple cotton.
“If you succeed you will pocket the profits. If you fail, you will not only
throw the burden on the taxpayers, but out of revenge for your failure,
you will lead this country into another murderous expedition against the
187
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Sudanese. That is the history of private enterprise guaranteed by
governments. The guarantee to the Sudan means the guarantee and
nothing else. You will then come to the House, if we permit you, with
long-drawn faces one day and say, ‘The position is critical, but our High
Commissioner is taking the situation in hand and he wants a few
battleships and a few battalions.’
“We know that behind the thin end of this wedge of guarantees lies the
same old seeking of profits, not in an enterprising spirit, but in an
unenterprising spirit, so that if you succeed in the gamble the profit and
the money and the glory are yours, and, if you fail, woe and death to
those poor fellows in the country you tried to get, and the taxpayer who
has to pay, not only for your loss, but for expeditions of revenge.
“Not only that, but as sure as the sun rises you will in process of time go
further into the Sudan and you yourselves will be the bosses and the
owners of the raw material. You will put factories there, you will exploit
the labour with the positive design of ill-treating and degrading labour
in this country.
(Laughter)
“I can see when the smiles are falsely put on. The Rt. hon gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer answered many questions of triviality, but
when he was touching on certain principles he forgot them, or perhaps
he was asked to forget them by his colleagues. The hon member for
Motherwell (Mr Newbold) put forward two glaring instances which,
apart from any possible emotion in them, are certainly an underlying
principle which generally, in outward life, you seem to discourage and
discountenance, but which, in this very favourite appeal of the
government, you seem not only to encourage and tolerate, but even to
patronise and practice.
“The member for Motherwell pointed out that here, in the name of the
League of Nations, a gentleman who is going to be a beneficiary himself
recommends a loan, and in the case of the Sudan, in the case of this
contract, a gentleman who, directly and indirectly, is going to be a
beneficiary, as a contractor, whether his tender was lowest or highest or
‘middlest’, that does not matter— one who in principle was to be the
beneficiary by a contract is himself the inspirer of the whole scheme of
188
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
giving a nice little guarantee. We do not want your money we only want
your guarantee!
“Day after day this slow degradation goes on. It is the demoralisation of
public institutions which has brought down all nations. In the Sudan
scheme the government ought to have taken precautions that those who
are connected with reporting on the scheme, recommending it, or
having anything to do with it, had no connection with the profits. The
government has failed to see to that.
“Why did the enterprising free enterprise suddenly collapse in its spirit
of enterprise, and make it necessary for us to sit here since eleven
o’clock? Why did not the government call on their favourite cry of
‘private enterprise’? Did the government make an attempt in the easy
style of governmental parliamentary attempts of asking their friends
what their wishes and desires were in this matter?
“Were they told by private enterprise that it saw a great future in it and
a great risk, and that it would be clever to shift the risk on to the
taxpayer who is generally a mug? That part requires to be explained by
the government, not only explicitly, but even candidly, and having no
regard to any secrecy between any negotiators and themselves.
“This House has a right to know the nature of any consultations, and the
persons with whom those consultations were carried on. If no
consultations took place, then the supporters of the government are
bound in duty to tell their constituents, now that the General Election is
over and the votes have been secured, that they forgot to go to the
private enterprisers. There must be something in it.
“Neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the Under-Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs, so far as I am aware, is either by education or
association a cotton expert. I do not believe that if a bale of Sudanese
cotton were placed in the hands of either of those Gentlemen they would
be able to say it was Sudanese cotton, or a piece of wool or anything else.
I do not believe that either of them would be able to test the long staple
or short staple article.
“I do not, therefore, believe that the whole scheme originated in their
heads. They told us there was a deputation, but that was last year. They
are a new government, and they tell us that, by some divine inspiration,
189
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
not financial investigation, they came to the conclusion that long-staple
cotton was grown in the Sudan. Never mind about the methods of
growing it, unemployment in Lancashire is going to be less. But the
government cannot make us accept such a doctrine unless they take us
into their confidence and tell us the full psychological evolution.
“We have heard of a deputation last year, and we see suddenly in this
Session a Bill. We see two different and separate things in front of us.
We have a very incomplete and undigested Bill about fine staple cotton
in the Sudan, but without any information or any explanation. We heard
of the deputation, but how the present occupants of office took up
suddenly, in the midst of the difficulties of the Irish Constitution, this
question of Sudanese cotton, and what experts they consulted in the
matter I hardly know.
“What promise did they get from the Manchester Chamber of
Commerce and from the Plymouth private enterprises as to how much
money they were prepared to put in? There are schemes put forward by
the public, by private companies and corporations, and these companies
and corporations came to Parliament to ask for sanction, they apply for
guarantees, and for security of interest, but nothing of that sort seems to
have happened in the case of Sudanese cotton.
“We have not heard today that the private enterprisers of Britain are so
dead that they are not able to stump up 3V2 millions. We have not heard
yet that the right hon members who support the government, and who
only last week were burning with zeal about the agriculturists and
farmers, have undertaken to take some of the unemployed farmers of
this country and send them to Sudan.
“We have not heard from the government that the present
unemployment in Lancashire has been due to a want of long staple
cotton and the market for the yarn made out of the long staple cotton.
We have heard from the government only a week ago, that stocks of
cotton yarn made out of long staple are still lying in the warehouses of
Manchester, Birkenhead and Liverpool. What do you want a further
70,000 bales of long staple cotton for if you have not been able to spin
that which you have and the cotton you did spin you are not willing to
sell because you do not get your pound of flesh?
190
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
“How the government, as the impartial arbiter between the workers and
the financiers, between the state and private enterprise, suddenly came
to this conclusion will remain a miracle and a mystery unless they
explain it more fully than they have done. It may be a miracle and
mystery to their friends, but it shall not be so to their opponents. When
we saw the mere whispers of this Bill in the air, when we heard the
gentle hints given to us tonight by the Prime Minister that it was
something about which the least said the soonest mended, and that we
sit up after eleven, the whole cat jumped out of the bag at once.
“Two issues spring out of the Sudanese cotton. Number one issue is that
the government has been made to think about this scheme, and the
second is that either they are unable to explain the details of the
business or they thought it was a matter about which a long talk must
not be permitted and that it might be got through in about half an hour.
But as I have said, this House is entirely a new House. In this House you
have not only human ears, but you have an intellectual microscope, and
those little invisible germs— I do not mean the members of the
opposition—”
The Chairman: “The hon member must approach the question of this
loan.”
Mr Saklatvala: “The germs are now becoming visible in their whole
alarming view to the public gaze. I submit that the whole idea
underlying this Sudan scheme and to push this Bill through at this time,
when we were least expecting to push it through, is to establish, what
every government generally desires to do, a precedent and a pledge, so
that throughout the coming Sessions this little nest will come up. I still
submit that the scheme as propounded by the government is a scheme
barren of the fundamental elements of justice. The scheme is based
upon one fact, as if it were a truism, that it is going to produce 70,000
bales of long staple cotton.”
The Chairman: “It is not in order to repeat the same argument.”
Mr Saklatvala: “I am submitting, Mr Hope, that from parallel examples
of similar hopefulness of the growing of long staple cotton in other parts
of the world, thousands of pounds have been wasted, and the cotton that
has been ultimately grown has been neither short staple nor long
191
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
staple.”
The House divided at 4am: ‘Ayes:’ 172, ‘Nos:’ 88 (a total of 260 members
present out of 643 elected— such is the democratic process).
On the 10th December, The Observer referred to his speech:
“Mr Saklatvala, who is better acquainted with the grammar of the
English tongue than with its slang, made a delightful perversion in his 3
o’clock-in-the-morning speech. ‘The whole cat,’ he said, ‘jumped out of
the bag at once.’”
On the 13th December 1922, the Evening News carried the following item
relating to a debate the previous day regarding the Army Supplementary
Estimate, part of which was a government proposal to compensate the
customers of a failed bank, all of whom were Army officers:
‘MPs’ All Night Liveliness— Storms and Yawns in Relay Race
Labour’s Plan
MP Talks Of Fighting In The Streets’
There then appear photographs of D. Kirkwood and Saklatvala.
“By deliberate obstruction tactics which a Labour MP called ‘the new
game of Patience’ but which the Speaker designated ‘a very old game of
Patience’, the Labour Party kept the House of Commons sitting until 7
minutes to 7 today.
“Lively scenes marked the sitting. ‘Scandal!’ and ‘Shame!’ were words in
frequent use by Labour MPs whose declared intention was to ‘keep the
House sitting continually until Friday night.’
“Mr Kirkwood of the Glasgow Labour MPs was particularly truculent.
He advised Labour MPs to ‘show their contempt for the whole
proceedings’ and talked of ‘fighting in the streets if necessary’.
‘A Parsi Oration— Mr Saklatvala talks for an hour on ‘Private enterprise”
“The Labour Party set their men to work in relays. The government, to
counter this, resorted to the closure motion every now and again. At
lam Mr Wheatley, who had been one of the most prominent
obstructionists, moved the adjournment of the House. ‘I submit,’ he
said, ‘that we have done a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay, and have
registered a very practical protest against unemployment.’
“‘I, being a young man, require some sleep,’ drowsily remarked Mr
192
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Buchanan, as he slowly rose to second the Motion. The House divided
and the Motion for adjournment was defeated by 185 to 93.
“The Labour Party then settled down again to their policy of
obstruction. They kept the House waiting for an hour for a
Supplementary Estimate of £100,000 required for grants to refugees
from Ireland, and obstructed the report stage of a Supplementary Army
Estimates of £340,000 for the purpose of compensating Officers and
others who have suffered from the failure of McGriggor’s Bank.
“Mr Ammon, who moved to reduce the sum by £100, complained that
no compensation had been paid to working people who had deposited
their savings in other banks.
“Mr Saklatvala, the Parsi Labour member, seized on this opportunity to
fire off a solid hour’s speech in derision of private enterprise...”
Hansard recorded it thus:
Mr Ammon moved the amendment and Mr Saklatvala rose to second it.
Mr Saklatvala: “I beg to second the amendment.
“I must also draw the attention of the House to the principles which are
expected to be observed by the constitutional government or, in fact, by
any body of men standing as trustees of public funds, and these
principles seem to me to be quite openly violated in this Grant. In the
first place, it is an extremely difficult position to charge a body of
honourable men with any bad motives or bad intentions, but a certain
place [the House of Lords] and the British House of Commons are both
paved with good intentions. That does not help anyone. Our actions
must be such that they not only remain above suspicion, but that they
are in conformity with the principles that we desire to enforce upon the
public as a governing House.
“It has been pointed out that there have been other bank failures. The
difference between the other bank failures and this bank failure appears
to be, as far as one can judge from the Supplementary Estimate, that
these are mostly members of the military Service. I put it that, because
they are members of the Army Service, is the greater reason why the
government should not, on sound principle, make this Grant, when in
the case of private customers of private banks they have openly refused
193
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
to do so.
“After all, is there not a very close connection between the civil
government of the country and the Army that supports the government
and keeps it in its position? This means that the civil government and
the Army which form a close fraternal union in the state are willing to
scratch each other’s backs, but they are not acting in the same manner
when people lose their money who are not part and parcel of
themselves. That is the obvious conclusion.
“In the case of banks where the subscribers were a poorer class of the
public, and who from a financial position were in need of greater
assistance than the present set of investors, the government were
drawing the distinction simply because it was the other arm of the
government whom they considered it advisable to help, whereas they
did not help the others.
“There is another consideration. We have seen how emphatically on two
previous occasions the government refused, not only all liability, but
even their liability of the soundness of the principle to help the ruined
shareholders and depositors of other banks, especially in the case of the
Penny Bank.
“I submit that the depositors had a claim at least, not only upon our
sympathy, but upon the moral support of the state. Essentially that class
of poor depositors were a class who were not highly educated, who were
not supposed to understand all about banking, all about the soundness
or otherwise of a bank, or of the status of the directors and persons who
formed that bank.
“Here the position is quite a different one. Generally speaking we may
take it that the depositors who have suffered here are people who ought
to have known better and had acted wrongly through perhaps the
motive of making a higher profit by dealing with this bank than by
investing their money elsewhere. They could not plead that ignorance
and that inability to understand their business which the depositors of
the Penny Bank could very well plead.
“Another principle underlying this Grant appears to me to be almost a
startling precedent. Personally, I do not mind that the members who are
in a majority in this House should go to the constituencies a month ago
194
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
and proclaim the merits of private enterprise, and when they get into
power, and when they find themselves and their friends in a very tight
corner through the glories of private enterprise, that then they should
rush to a scheme of Socialism for safety and emancipation.
“Personally, I do not regret it, but, as a matter of principle, taking the
government as it is formed, and taking the government as the people of
this country desire it to be, I think it is exceedingly wrong for the
government to trifle with the money of the public in this fashion. If you
look at the nature of the Grant itself, what does it mean? It is paying a
premium on gambling. It is rewarding those who take part in a swindle,
because, after all, though we may sympathise—”
Sir A. Holbrook: “On a point of Order. I think it unfair of the Hon.
member to charge officers of the Army of being concerned in the
swindle. That is what I object to.”
(Hon. members: “No!”)
Mr Saklatvala: “When the money disappears, it disappears either
through gross negligence or through swindling directly by those who are
in control of these moneys. There is not the slightest question in my
mind whether one party directly swindles the depositors or another set
of swindlers in the way of private enterprise. What I beg to point out
and what I do point out, is that the government, by this action, are
paying a premium on this system of swindling, because we must
remember that in private enterprise, as constituted by law and carried
on in an orderly manner, both parties are guilty either of negligence or
of encouraging fraud, if not of practising it.
“The depositors who deposit their money in a concern and do not make
proper investigation as to the nature of the soundness of that concern,
as to the business ability of the heads of that concern, who are careless
of going to that concern from time to time to demand proper accounts
and analyse the affairs of that concern, are, themselves, a danger to
society and especially, I should say, a danger to society composed of
private enterprisers.
“It is a public duty, if it is not a personal duty, of every depositor in a
money concern under a system of private enterprise, which always
encourages sharp practice, it is the public duty of every investor in a
195
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
private enterprise to very carefully and analytically search into the
conduct and condition of those persons responsible for conducting the
industry; and the depositors of this particular concern, having failed in
that personal duty as well as that public duty, have themselves been
responsible for the very thing which has come to them and their
deposits.
“The government now comes and says, ‘Oh, never mind; we are at your
back, because most of you are akin to us in your social and economic
conditions, and because most of you are followers of our politics, we are
friends, we are one and the same; we will get you out of the trouble,’
whereas, the self-same government and the self-same country once
upon a time refused to bring out of trouble a much poorer class and a
much poorer set of depositors when they lost their money.
“But we are told, in a very indirect and vague manner, as if there is some
thought of a liability hanging upon the government, that this bank was
something like a double-faced Janus. It turned to the Army officers and
said to them, ‘I am your agent; give me your money.’ Then it turned to
the other side and became a speculative banker, and gambled or did
what it pleased with the moneys of the depositors. The government,
therefore, feel that, when they look at this particular concern from its
banking face, they cannot easily forget its agency face. But that is the
greater reason why the responsible government ought not to take this
step of granting money.
“I should suggest that they ought to take steps to save the depositors as
a compensation for having brought them into the dangerous position,
but they ought not to have done so from public funds. I appeal to you;
supposing the government was in a position of a director of a concern,
what would have been your position? The government here are
distinctly negligent themselves, because they have appointed as Army
agents, or sanctioned the working as Army agents, of a certain party
who, as results have proved, were unworthy of being put in that
position.
“The government victimised the Army officers by inducing them to
deposit their money with a concern with which otherwise, perhaps, they
would not have entrusted so much. The government are helping
196
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
themselves. I use that word with due apology. The government are
helping themselves with public funds in order to make up a loss to
innocent people, the burden of which they feel upon their conscience as
private human beings.
“I submit very seriously to this House, what would be the position of the
same Ministers if they found themselves placed in a condition like this;
were they the directors of a concern. We have recently seen some
scandalous affairs attaching to banking corporations where directors
have by their negligence brought a loss upon innocent depositors or
those who have had dealings with the concern.
“The Courts of Justice, constitutionally, made demand that these
directors put their hands into their own pockets and make up the loss.
That is the moral law. But if the government sitting in Parliament says
that they must make up the loss with the avowed enterprise of
protecting them, it was setting a bad example and degrading the dignity
of the House. The government appointed these people as Army agents,
and their appointment was inducive to the depositors going to this
particular concern and not only going to this particular concern—”
(An Hon. member: “But coming back!”)
“—but remaining very careless as to the modes of operation of this
concern, thinking that as these were Army agents they would be safe.
When it comes to the Ministers that the burden lies upon them, they
ought to take some other means of raising this money, themselves or
their friends, to defray these losses, but they ought not to touch money
belonging to the public. I submit that we, as a Parliament and as a
public, should be able to take Ministers to law and make them refund
this money.
“We have heard about private enterprise. This case more than any other
distinctly proves that what we know to be private enterprise is certainly
private, but is always devoid of the spirit of honest enterprise. Private
enterprise appears to me to be that moneys and properties belonging to
others are dealt with in privacy, the profits accruing therefrom being
pocketed by those who call themselves private enterprisers, and when
their recklessness or carelessness or inability, or even their dishonesty,
brings the whole thing to ruin, the position of the present government is
197
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
that the taxpayer is called upon to reimburse the losers. If this scheme
passes—”
(An Hon. member: “It will!”)
“—I wonder how many more banking concerns will be encouraged to
‘mushroom’ up tomorrow in this country? If this grant be made to
reimburse the losses of foolish and negligent depositors, giving back to
them, a substantial assistance, after their remaining negligent, of their
own ordinary interest, I wonder whether we are giving a lesson to the
public to be more careful after a failure like this or are we giving a lesson
to the public not to worry about carefulness, that the state is always at
their back to make up their gambling losses, and that they can gamble
away?
“These are Army officers. Had they no Post Office Savings Banks or
were they too superior and too rich and aristocratic to go to the savings
banks alongside the poor people? If they were too rich and too
aristocratic to do that, why did they come with their hats to the British
taxpayer? Were these the patriotic gentlemen of Great Britain who were
putting their placards and posters on the walls, published and printed
from public money, ‘Put in your 15s 6d and it will be 25s 6d’?
“Why do not they practise what they preach? Why did they come to this
private bank for the deliberate purpose of speculating on a larger scale?
All the bait you held out to them did not draw them even when that bait
was steeped in the more attractive honey of patriotism. No appeal seems
to have gone forth to these depositors at the time they were depositing
their money that there were other channels open to them.
“What does that indicate? It distinctly indicates that they had some
spare money about which they were not really very much concerned and
with which they thought it possible to take a gamble in a so-called bank.
It points to the fact that, while the Army itself is underpaid, the Army
officers are paid more than was needed for their daily life, and that
accounts for the large deposits in a certain concern in which they had no
business to deposit any money.
“Secondly, it shows that the Army officers being well provided for with
more liberal compensation than the old age pensioner gets in this
country, were very unconcerned as to what really happened to their
198
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
savings, and they wanted laterally to gamble with it rather than save it
in a state Savings Bank. The whole question is that there is no real
financial need. This time it is not the failure of the needy and the poor
ones; it is not the failure of those who would be dragged to the gutter
absolutely in their old age by having lost these fortunes. This is money
belonging to a class of officer who evidently, after living fairly well—
(An Hon. member: “How do you know?”)
“—From the very fact that the state issued this money. They got it
exactly from the same government that starved the Tommy. They got
this money after living on a much higher scale than the ordinary soldier
and the ordinary average working-class man of this country, and they
were so backed up by a system of pensions and so confident about it that
they did not consider it necessary to take the ordinary care and
precaution about saving this money for their old age. No one likes to
lose money. Even we have seen millionaires, if they lost a few
thousands, beginning to wail, and if they had to pay Excess Profits they
would cut off some of their benefactions. The richer they are the more
unwilling they are to part with it.”
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. James Hope): “The hon member is getting
very wide from the point now.”
Mr. Saklatvala: “I submit that, while they may feel the loss of their
money, they cannot be classed with the people rendered destitute by the
other failures, people who have now got to pass a hopeless future in
their old age without any means of support or livelihood, as was the case
with the depositors in the Penny Bank. There is no particular reason,
from a financial point of view, for the state to come with public funds
and help them to the extent of £340,000 at a time when the government
have no money for the men whose women and children have anxious
moments to find a piece of bread for next morning.
“From a moral point of view, the government have not made out any
particular case for this grant. Men are responsible for the way in which
they invested their money in a concern conducted in a very indifferent
manner, and in which no cautious man would have kept his money for
any considerable time. Considering the moral responsibility of the
government, that it was their own Army agents who had done it, I think
199
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
that the responsible persons in the government themselves, with the
assistance, if they are too poor, of their rich friends, should have a
donation fund, instead of paying compensation from the public funds
because of their own negligence in dealing with a party that was not
worthy to be dealt with.
“These are considerations which can go directly against making such a
grant from public funds. We are told there are no precedents for such a
grant being made. The government are not only making the public pay
£340,000, but they are not making the public learn a costly lesson.
Instead, they are, by making this grant, setting a bad example of
appointing wrong Army agents for depositors to go ahead and gamble as
they please, giving a premium to bankers who want to play fast and
loose with the depositors’ money, knowing there will be no public howl
about it, but that a generous government will come forward and help
them with public money.
“They are also giving a bad example to the Army, which is maintained
by the state, by showing by this grant that Army officers are not
required to be cautious and thrifty. They are not of the people. They are
not to go to the state arrangements for saving money in the Post Office
banks. They are permitted to gamble. If they make a profit, the profit
will be theirs. If they make a loss, the loss will be borne by the taxpayer.”
In reply to this peroration, the Financial Secretary to the War Office, Lieut.
Col. Jackson said:
“I am sure the hon Gentlemen who moved and seconded the Reduction
will not think me discourteous if I do not reply to their arguments at this
particular moment. They will be replied to later in the debate and I am
doubtful if I can reply to all the remarks of the last speaker. I am not
sure I could do it in the sunshine and I am quite certain I cannot do it at
this late hour...”
Thus ended Saklatvala’s first three weeks in the House of Commons; he had
certainly already made his mark as a forceful and entertaining contributor to
parliamentary debates.
200
CHAPTER 10
Speaking Against Imperialism
Unemployment Sunday. Speech during parliamentary
debate on the ‘ Indian states— Protection Against Disaffection
Act, 1922’. The campaign against substandard housing in
London.
Much to the indignation of the Labour Party and the working class movement
generally, the parliamentary Christmas recess was not to end until 13th
February 1923. Saklatvala seconded a parliamentary resolution protesting
against the prorogation, stating that by extending the parliamentary holiday to
13th February the government showed its indifference to the suffering of the
long-term unemployed
The TUC organised a national day of demonstration that became known as
Unemployment Sunday. A huge crowd gathered in Trafalgar Square on 7th
January, where they were addressed by, among others, George Lansbury,
Saklatvala and Wal Hannington.
201
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Photo: Saklatvala speaking in Trafalgar Square; George Lansbury
faces the camera
It was not until well after the Christmas recess that Saklatvala finally got the
chance to address the House on the subject nearest to his heart, namely, the
iniquities of imperialism as practiced in India. It was on the 27th February
1923, that under Orders of the Day, the House had before it the ‘Indian states
(Protection Against Disaffection) Act, 1922’. Colonel Wedgewood (Labour)
moved that, ‘A humble Address be presented to His Majesty that he withhold
his assent to the Indian states (Protection Against Disaffection) Act 1922.’
This Act was to make it impossible for subjects of the Indian princely states,
not under British rule, or Indian citizens in British India, to publicise in India
or the Indian press, the malpractices of the Indian princes against their
subjects. While several of the Princes were reasonably benevolent, many of
them were despotic and cruel, and Colonel Wedgewood made an impassioned
and detailed speech against Great Britain affording their protection to these
despotic and tyrannical regimes.
Mr Snell (Labour), in seconding the Motion, referred to the Act as a measure
which “very seriously limits human freedom.” The Act was to impose a penalty
of five years imprisonment, with or without a fine, upon anyone who may
“write, edit, print or publish, any book, newspaper or document calculated to
bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against Princes or
Chiefs of a state in India...”
Snell pointed out to the House that the punishment was to be administered
not because any words published had actually caused riot or sabotage or
revolution; “a person may be imprisoned... on the ground that the speculative
mind of an official may think that his words may have caused disaffection.”
Later in his long and passionate speech he reminded the House that, by the
famous Proclamation issued in 1858, which was the Magna Carta of Indian
liberties, we undertook to concede the same rights and principles to the Indian
people as to British subjects born elsewhere. This proposed Act negated that
ideal.
Saklatvala took up the argument, at first with quiet sarcasm. He said:
“I suppose I shall be pardoned for saying that I cannot tear myself away
from the feeling that we are conducting a mock debate, with a forgone
conclusion. I want all my colleagues here tonight to remember that for
202
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
these few hours, they are not the same Parliament which they imagine
they are, and which they were up till 4 o’clock this afternoon.
“Up till 4 o’clock this was a Parliament that believed in the
representation of the people, in the supreme right, above the sovereign
right, of the elected representatives of the people. After 4 o’clock,
Parliament has reversed its engines, and it believes in a dictatorship
over a foreign people, through a man whom they have sent out, in whose
selection 300 million of people had no voice whatever. [He was, of
course, alluding to the Viceroy, at whose personal instigation the Act
was introduced.]
“The Parliament which here wants to give speed and growth to
democratic institutions, desires to extend the franchise, and pretends to
give further and further rights to the enfranchised people, is at the same
time spreading itself thousands and thousands of more miles further
away in other parts of the world, where this very Parliament demands
that the people of those countries shall have no voice in the
administration and governing of their affairs. This Parliament, as it now
considers the Bill, is not the advocate of the right of representation of
the people, but of the dictatorship of somebody outside, to other peoples
of the world. And this is an entirely different Assembly.
“There is a danger in this sort of debate having, perhaps, a misguiding
effect. By our very effort to save the government from rushing into a
mad act, we are liable here on the Labour Benches to be surreptitiously
drawn into an Imperial policy, as if we wanted Imperialism to be run
more correctly than they desire, but though there is such a danger, there
is no reality in it. The Labour Party is asking the government not to do
something ridiculous and silly, which would betray their own aims and
efforts, but by so doing it does not give a pledge to the other side that
the Labour Party desires a more correct form of Imperialism to be
observed than the government desire.
“There is also a danger, on the part of our Indian friends that, by this
kind of struggle, by this kind of tug-of-war with the imperialist, foreign,
dominating power, they are tacitly accepting the right of this country to
send a Viceroy at all. That is not the position from the Indian point of
view, and we do not want to be snared into the false Imperialism which
203
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
after the War, the whole world, barring the Liberals and Conservatives
of Great Britain, have cast to the winds.
“I am glad that on this occasion our friends, the Liberal Party, are
openly associating themselves with the government so far as we have
heard their speakers. We do not wish to have, on such imperialist
questions, the idea that there are three groups in this House. There are
only two groups. The one group is the group of Conservatives and
Liberals combined that believes in the supreme right of this country and
this Parliament in exploiting and dominating over the countries that do
not belong to them and that never sent men forth here to disturb them
at all; and opposed to them there is only one group that does not believe
in such imperialist domination, but believes in the co-operation of all
nations on terms of equality and equal rights.
“The real difficulty with regard to the Viceroy’s position arises from the
system which he has got to maintain. After the War, the whole of the
world, civilised as far as you may call yourselves, or uncivilised as far as
others may think, has come to realise that political Imperialism is mere
barbarity, however nicely you put it. The world has also come to realise
that no country and no nation can now live at peace and in prosperity by
crushing other nations economically.
“If there was no Viceroy in India to represent this political domination
of Britain, but if there were dozens of Britishers to represent the
fraternal co-operation of the working classes of Britain, this Bill and this
question and this debate would not have arisen at all, and the result
would have been far better than that at which the government or the
present Viceroy may be aiming.
“I myself realise the position. You send out a Viceroy, and you tell 300
millions of people that they have got nothing to do with selecting the
head of their administration. You have only got to send out a certain
person for a number of years to run over the people— not to consult
them, not to serve— to govern them in the interests that are not known
to the people as the peoples’ interests. I quite imagine that Viceroy
should more than once run away with the idea that he can only be doing
his duty to the Mother Country whenever he defies the wishes of the
people in whose midst he has got to live his life. That being the position,
204
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
the Viceroy runs to this House and asks that we should back him up,
and in order to preserve Imperialism as such, you are going to back him
up.
COMMUNISTS IN j
THE OPEN.
DEMONSTRATIONS BT
UNEMPLOYED.
A “RED FLAG” EFFORT.
Demonstrations c rgunizcd by tixi
official Labour bodies in conjunction with
the “ National Unemployed Workers’
Committee Movement '* vrere held in
many parts of tbe country yesterday. At
each a resolution was submitted demand-
ing tbe immediate meeting of Parliament
to deal with the unemployment problem.
The opportunity was seized by the Com-
ntmists to malm a bold display in
speeches and banners.
Many tliousands were attracted to the
London demonstration in Traf&lgar-
square. None of the banners was brighter
or newer than those borne by the various
branches of tho Communist Party, wiio
had apparently obeyed in full fort* the
official instruction to identify themselves
actively with the proceedings. It was a
Communist banner, reared against the
bronze relief depicting tbe Battle of
Copenhagen, that formed the central
feature of the background at the main
platform on tbe Nelson Column. The
” Red Flag ” was frequently sung, both
on tbe march and in the square. On the
instrumental side the " Marseillais* ” and
the Sian Fein “ Soldier's Song ” mingled
with the pibroch*. ’Under tbe banner of
the Stepney Young Communist League a
group of foreign-looking youths song
Communist nursery rhymes.
Tbe hunger-niarchvrB aid not parade scpur-
ot*lr, but were scattered la smuU oontlngimtu
among the vurlous prottsaiotn. Among tboee
t’.kins pert, according to tbe banners. wete
men from Liverpool, Newcastle, Shi'ITleld,
Edinburgh, Gliqns, and Greenock. Atr.
Georg* Lxaebury, AI.P.. beaded on* o( tbe
East-end processions, and anon; other
numbers of Pad lament who were picsant on
the plinth were Mr. Bowerman. Mr. .March.
Mr. MelCnWt, and Mr. Saklatvaki.
Clipping: The Times, 8th January 1923
“May I ask this House to consider the effects upon the sections of the
Indian population? The new Act dared to enfranchise 6% of the
population of India, most of whom laughed at the artificial right of
franchise given to them by a foreign domination, and 85% of those who
were given that franchise scorned it, and said they would have nothing
205
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
to do with it. As the balance, there is just 1 % of the population of India
that is hanging on to the Viceroy and his Councils and is keeping faith in
British administration as it now stands. It is 1%, but I know the men and
the women that are in it. They are worthy of everybody’s consideration,
but above all, I want the government to realise that here is this 1%
volunteering to keep faith in British institutions, volunteering to come
forward to back up the Viceroy and British Councils and the British
mode of administering the country—”
Mr Speaker: “This is not the occasion on which to review the
government of India Act or the present system of government in India.
The only question that arises here is whether the right judgement has
been exercised within the law now existing in India.”
Mr Saklatvala: “I am going to make the point, Mr Speaker, of drawing
the attention of the government to the people whom they are hurting by
rejecting the Motion of the Labour Party. The people who are now
protesting against the Viceroy’s action, and the people whom the Labour
Party is now trying to back up, are the people who have dared to become
the laughing stock of 99% of their own countrymen in their effort to
stand by the British institutions, and the Viceroy and the government
here are now throwing them over.
“They are telling the people that there is no reality in the Councils, that
they have believed in something that was a sham, and they are further
telling these people, who the other day sent in a petition, which was duly
sent forward, asking this House to consider their position, that this
House does not exist in reality as a protector of representational popular
freedom. This will be the effect if the government persist in their policy
and do not take the warning that is offered them from the Labour
Benches.
“The action of the Viceroy has another side, which I will ask the
government to bear in mind, and that is this. The people of India do not
believe that the Viceroy is taking this measure for the protection of the
Princes as such. The people of India know that, up to the end of the
reign by Lord Curzon, the Princes of India were driven by a whip by the
Viceroys of India, and it was the Indian papers and the Indian public
organisations that were always protecting them and protesting against
206
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
the action of the government.
“The people of India have now begun to believe— they may be right or
they may be wrong— that the government are now adopting a policy of
quietly influencing and even, where possible, of indirectly coercing, the
Indian Princes to maintain a very reactionary policy in the Native states,
and that the government of India are now afraid of their secret and
silent influence at the back of what is known in India as Imperialism,
which is being exposed by honest criticism in the Indian press, on which
account they are out to pass this Act over the heads of the people of
India.
“It was said by members on both sides in the debate that there is a
pledge. Who gave the pledge? The Viceroy, whom the people have never
elected. He gave the pledge, and he wants the representatives of the
people to stand by his pledge. That is the unnatural position of
Imperialism. There is no constitutional position in such a pledge, and
there is no obligation on the people of India to maintain such a pledge.
They are not parties to it... I should be extremely pleased if the
government rejected the Motion of the Labour Party, because that is the
only way by which this last lingering vestige of Imperialism in this world
will go to its grave.
“If by any chance you began to show common sense, and if by any
chance you began to retrace your steps, it would be somewhat
calamitous, because it would still enable Imperialism to continue to
exist, and I am quite ready to take sides with the Motion of the Labour
Party, because it is quite obvious that the Labour Party can never
advocate the principle that one individual should have autocratic power
over the representatives of the people. At the same time, I hope that,
after the action of the government in defying the Labour Party, the
Labour Party will begin now to discriminate between the existence and
non-existence of Imperialism.
207
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Mr. SAKLATVALA (Battersea, N., Lab.)
^ Wt that tli» House were r-mductii.r
a mock debate to a foregone cooHiibIow. In
Uii8 country they lavoirrad the growth of
democratic hiatiUitloiia, but in oUier port*
Of the worid they demanded that the people
abouJd bar* no voice In the admiaiatroMon
of th^r nffiurfc He would bo Mtrandy
pleased « the Government rejected the motion
of tbe Labour Patty, because that wt a tbe
way In winch the last lingering vestige
Imperialism wooH go to it* crave. (Ubour
clients and Ministerial laughter.) As to the
Indian Cinl Hnrrice. it waa not Indian, it
won not civil, and it waa a domination and
a usurpation. ( laughter.) Barring these three
great defacta, the Service waa aO right. <Re-
nawed laughter.) 11 the Government wished
to destroy Brltirh Imperialism kt than go
on with Lbfdr aatocraUe programme. If they
wished to gfve an crUodcd lease of tile to
British Imperialism they must tell tbe Viceroy
to retrace his steps, to climb down, and to
End some other cotnouflago with which to
rule the Indian people. (Laughter.)
Clipping: The Times, 28th February 1923
“Before concluding, I may just add one word as to the Indian Civil
Service, about which there was some argument on account of some
remarks offered by the Hon. and Gallant member who moved the
Labour Motion [Col. Wedgewood]. I do not believe that it is the
intention to attack personalities or members with regard to this
particular Bill.
“What we do feel is that it is not so much the individual desire of the
Viceroy to push it through over the heads of quite a new Assembly, as it
is the traditional practice of the Indian Civil Service, and not because
the individuals who form the Indian Civil Service are themselves
particularly selected wrong men. That is not the idea, but that the whole
system and machinery has got its own faults. The Indian Civil Service is
not Indian. It has no reputation for being civil, and it is a domination
and a usurpation. Barring these three great defects, they are all right.
“I, therefore, say to the government that if they wish to destroy
Imperialism, as they should, they should go on with their autocratic
programme. If they wish to give an extended lease to British
Imperialism, they may tell the Viceroy to retrace his steps, to climb
down and find some other camouflage to rule the people of India.”
Mr Hope Simpson then rose and said he found himself at some disadvantage
after the wonderful rhetorical effort to which the House had just listened with
such enjoyment.
On the following day, Saklatvala turned his attention to more mundane
matters nearer home, in his own constituency of North Battersea, and he
208
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
raised the question of sub-standard housing there. It is a speech that could
well be echoed today, when housing is still an acute and agonising problem for
thousands of working people in our great cities; when, in spite of the efforts
through the years of so many sincere pleaders and champions for their cause,
thousands of families are still without homes and shelter and many thousands
more are living in derelict and unhealthy slums.
Well, here is a little effort my father made in 1923, sixty-five years ago as I
write. We have found money for a world war, for armaments and nuclear
weapons, for the upkeep of an elaborate and oh-so-secret-service, for
propaganda and intervention throughout the world, for a mini-war in the
Falklands, but still we cannot find the money to build enough homes for our
people to live in. Human hearts must be adamantine hard.
Saklatvala said:
“I wish to bring to the notice of the substitute for the Minister of Health
an urgent matter concerning the housing problem. I am specially
requested by the Borough Council of Battersea to urge upon the
Minister to give it sympathetic consideration and not to set it aside on
grounds of Party feeling. It is not only a question of the shortage of
houses and the delay in erecting new houses, but of a most acute
problem, which has arisen of rendering existing houses useless by
landlords sheltering behind certain imperfections in the law.
“In accordance with Section 28 of the Housing and Town Planning Act,
1918, while the Municipal authorities are empowered to put in repair
certain houses, they are left in a position of great doubt as to ultimately
recovering the sums of money spent on such repairs.
“The Battersea Council is faced with the fact that, having repaired
certain houses when the cost was at its highest, they now stand no
chance of recovering the sum from the landlords, and have had to come
to terms for spreading the repayments over 15 years. Before they can
recover the public funds which have been spent on taking care of private
enterprise in Battersea, they will have to wait for 15 years. Further, on
investigation it has been found that these landlords are not aliens but
Britishers, and one happens to be a Scotsman.
“The most serious point is that Section 28 does not give any powers to
the Borough Council over the freeholders, and the leaseholders are
209
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
merely undergoing a process of transferring houses from the name of
one leaseholder to that of another, and in the meanwhile the tenants are
dwelling in houses which are unfit for use as dwelling places. The
municipal authorities have been compelled in Stanford Street, to take in
charge about 25 houses, all in one street, and they cordially invite
representative of the Ministry to visit these houses which are
specimens...
“I am glad to say that all the inhabitants are on rent strike because they
know that morally the landlords do not deserve the rents. The trouble is
that the corporation have to put these houses into repair, and they do
not know how they will recover the expenses.
1
NEW COMMUNIST
METHODS.
THE M SPORTS ” MOVEMENT
A Communist offetsai v., to inaugurate the
reorganuatioo tli* potty hoc undergooe at tho
bidding of Its Continental Isadora, wilt bo
opened next weak in U»e principal industrial
oentraa. Tbe inner council of nine, wbo direct
Uie movement in (ireat Britain Iran their
headquarters in Covcnt Gordon, aiw spreading
themselves osar tbe country, nod tliey will
form the principal attraction at the meetings
arranged to bo hold at Barrow, Birmingham.
Brighten, Cardiff. Liverpool, and other places.
It is latnrMtinc to note that Ur. Sallatvalo,
the Parses member of Parliament for one of
the Battersea divisions, is prominently osao-
1 dated with the campaign. Mr. Saklntvala'S
pobtlca cam* under review by tlio Parlia-
mentary Labour Party test Snafon, and it
would now appear that bo has decided to re-
inforce Mr. a ow bold's party of one in the
House of Commons. l.'nder threat, of being
reported individually to the inner council of
nine, all members are called upon to Join In
selling Communist *' literature." carrying
banner*, speaking, or collecting money.
-
Clipping: The Times, 8th January 1923
“The request of the Battersea Council is that the Minister should see his
way to make an alteration in the Section as quickly as possible, with
retrospective power, if possible, to arrange that instead of the landlord
and leaseholder being sued for recovery of the expenses incurred, other
arrangements shall be made.
“If they could permit the Corporation to go to the County Court Judge or
the Magistrate before the repairs are effected, giving the landlord a
reasonable time as adjudicated by the Court, and if he failed to effect
such repairs within that time, if the Corporation could be allowed to
210
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
take over charge of the house at its depreciated value, that would be the
only way in which a solution could be found. We shall be obliged for an
assurance from the Minister that such an alteration can be made
speedily.”
The parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, Colonel Leslie Wilson apologised
for the absence of Sir W. Joynson-Hicks. Efforts had been made to find him in
order that he should be present to answer the Hon. member, but he had left
the House. Colonel Wilson promised to convey Mr Saklatvala’s remarks to the
Minister and see that he takes all that has been said into consideration. The
Session came to an end at 26 minutes after 11 o’clock.
A fortnight after this plea in the House, Saklatvala addressed a mass meeting
convened by the Labour Party in Westminster on the subject of poor housing
in that borough.
211
CHAPTER 11
The Deportations to Ireland
The arrest in the UK of 112 people of Irish origin and their
deportation to Dublin; widely protested and subsequently
declared illegal.
On the 12th March 1923, a small paragraph appeared discreetly on page 12 of
The Times under headlines, ‘Irish Arrests in England— too Men and Women
Expelled— Free State Charges’.
IRISH ARRESTS IN
. . ENGLAND. ....
100 MEN AND WOMEN
EXPELLED.
FREE STATE FRA ROES,
Tire Press AssodaWam tits* mere
UtiMi one hundred Irishmen und Intfc
arrvriari to tSftomu parts ol
tucUrd no NaHiHIaj' night mid
«Uy or! thnftfM totmtolairfl hjr it* liuti
Free Store, The pttwmeto token to
I.ivwtp*K>l »ml transferred to ■ British
cHthrr, whlrh kit ywiwduy, fl h
MieVed. fo# Ireland.
Tto> mvnker oreretod in Lcmdrei aw*
bn O frni thirty anil forty, tn Livarjnnl
om twentvr in ItaaclKatar atomt. <1
durna, and 'in n.rtntogj.ahi amt ftoolifi
hati a dntL-n. Rone «wre utrnted to
E««* Coma towns.
H 10 uperetionB slurj cxtmded to Nrot-
IiikJ. A rhmdrw trWgnun an ' — A
trAcWt in a Roman (Nuhnlk school in
Dundee «n arrrered by dcreottvrs on
SuUIrttoy night under a rkport aUon older.
He *«» com-pyad by taai-cub lo Ola^fen,
iTlume*, it is undatatnud. tot If to Ire fc-tit
tnth rthen to 1 ret find.
V tJttor inift v»i wet lx (ound aa peace
j i iiid m
Clipping: The Times, 12th March 1923
On the same day, the Manchester Guardian reported prominently on the
arrests and published the following official statement by the Liverpool police:
“In accordance with a concerted plan and acting on the instructions of the
Home Office, numerous arrests of Irish men and women resident in foreign
towns were carried out during the course of Saturday night...”
212
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
It was the Daily Herald that really gave the news its full impact and
importance in the centre of the front page, under a banner headline,
‘Sensational Round-Up of Irishmen.’
The report continued:
“Over too arrests in night raids. Prisoners taken from many parts of
Britain and deported to Ireland in HMS Castor. London houses
ransacked: member of Dail taken. The arrests had been carried out in
London, Liverpool, Manchester. Birmingham and Bootle as well as
Glasgow and other Scottish towns.
“The arrests were carried out on an order signed by Mr Bridgeman, the
Home Secretary. This document quoted the Defence of the Realm Act
and the Restoration of Order Act, Ireland, as the authorities for the
action taken. Some of the men arrested in London were told by the
police and detectives who made the arrests that if they would assure the
Free State Authorities that they were not performing Republican work,
they would be speedily released. The arrests were on charges formulated
by the Irish Free State.
“All the persons were brought to Liverpool and transferred to the British
cruiser, Castor, which sailed yesterday afternoon (Sunday 11th March),
it is believed, for Ireland. The majority of the arrested persons were
men. All the women taken are described as of good address, one being,
it is stated, a doctor... each were ordered to take with them a pillow, a
mg and a spare suit...”
The next day, the headlines ran: ‘Commons Denounce Irish Deportations.
Home Secretary Indicted’:
“no prisoners including 19 women arrived in Dublin on board HMS
Castor, accompanied by destroyers Victorious and Wolfhound. They
were kept below deck until 2 o’clock yesterday morning (12th March)
when, with every precaution taken, they were removed on motor chars-
a-bancs to Mountjoy Prison. The chars-a-bancs were escorted by
armoured cars, and strong patrols of National Troops held the streets
until the prisoners were safely lodged.”
A three-hour-long discussion in the Commons received wide press coverage.
The matter was debated under ‘Arrests In Great Britain— Statement By The
213
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Home Secretary’ on 12th March 1923, excerpted here:
Mr Ramsay Macdonald (Labour and Leader of HM Opposition) (by
private notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department
whether he can make a statement with regard to the reported arrest and
immediate deportation to Ireland of a number of people residing in this
country; the reason for the action taken, and the authority under which
he acted?
Mr Bridgeman: (Secretary of State for Home Department): I will, if I
may, answer this question, and another question of which Private
Notice has also been given to me by the Hon. member for Silvertown
(Mr Jones).
Mr J. Jones (Liberal): On a point of Order. I want to know if my
question is exactly the same as put by my Hon. Friend the member for
Aberavon. With due respect, I have raised a different issue altogether.
Mr Speaker: The Hon. member will have his opportunity if he raises a
specific question after the Hon. gentleman has answered the general
one.
Mr Bridgeman: I was proposing to read out the question of the Hon.
member for Silvertown, and I thought my general answer would cover
the points of both questions. The question of the Hon. member is as
follows: ‘To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is
aware that a school teacher, born in England, named Frank Fitzgerald,
of Forest Gate, was arrested about 12am on Sunday morning, 11th
March and has since been deported to Ireland; if he will state the reason
for this arrest and if there is any legal redress for a citizen of this
country who has been arrested and deported in this way.’
Certain arrests, one of which is referred to by the Hon. member for
Silvertown in his question, were carried out during the weekend in
pursuance of orders made by me and the Secretary of Scotland,
respectively, directing that a number of persons shall be interned under
No. 14B of the Restoration of Order in Ireland Regulations. There has
lately been a progressive increase in Irish Republican activity here. We
are in possession of material clearly indicating the existence of a quasi-
military organisation controlled by a person calling himself ‘Officer
Commanding, Britain’—
214
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Mr Lansbury (Labour): Galloper Smith! [referring ironically to a
Conservative politician well-known for his opposition to Irish
nationalism]
Mr Bridgeman: —and of an intention on the part of that organisation
primarily to do everything in their power, in co-operation with the
irregulars in Ireland, to overthrow the Free State government, and also
in certain contingencies to resort to acts of violence in this country in
pursuance of their unlawful aims. It was clearly the duty of His
Majesty’s government being in possession of such information, to take
action, and we have for some time past been in consultation with the
Free State government as to the best method of dealing with the
situation. The arrests have been made at the request of that
government.
The persons arrested are all of Irish origin and are either members of
the Organisation referred to, or have supported it directly or indirectly.
They will be held in custody by the Free State government in their own
country. This seemed, on the whole, after full consideration, the
simplest and most effective method of dealing with these persons who,
claiming to be Irish, and to be acting in the interests of Ireland, so
grossly abused the hospitality of this country.
Captain Hay (Labour): That is begging the question.
Mr Bridgeman: If hon members express the wish to be more fully
informed as to the organisation against which this action has been
directed, I shall be pleased, as soon as possible, to place in the Library
illustrative specimens of documents which have lately fallen into our
hands. The persons arrested have all been informed that they may, if
they wish, make representations to an Advisory Committee, which will
be presided over by someone who holds, or has held, high judicial office.
Mr Macdonald: Arising out of the answer, first of all on the point of
legality. Does the government hold that the Restoration of Order,
Ireland, Regulations run in this country? And, secondly, with reference
to the Committee, is that Committee sitting in this country, and are the
deported persons to be allowed to return to this country during the
enquiry into their deportation?
Mr Jones: Before the rt hon gentleman answers, I should like to ask if a
215
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
reply is going to be given to my question. My question relates to a
British subject, born in England, and if such are going to be deported
without appeal to the ordinary Courts of Law? If this man has been
guilty of an offence against the state, I am not here to defend him, but I
am asking are not the ordinary Courts in this country available?
(Interruption.) I am going to go on if I am chucked out.
Mr Bridgeman: With regard to the last question, I was told that this
person was engaged in this organisation.
Mr Jones: He was not. He is a British subject. Why do you not answer
my question?
Hon. Members: It has been answered.
Mr Speaker: The Hon. member must really listen to the answer.
Clearly he had not been answered, since he wanted to know why a
British citizen was not being tried in a British court of law after being
duly charged with whatever crime of which he might be suspected.
Mr Bridgeman: I have already said that this man has the power of
appearing before an Advisory Committee.
Mr Jones: He is an English subject and he has a right to appear before
the courts of this country... This man is an English subject, and he has
not the right to be deported without trial... Why should they be deported
like this?
Mr Lansbury: Does the Home Secretary claim the right to deport a
British subject, born in this country, to another country, without trial
either by judge or jury?
Mr Bridgeman: I have already answered that question. My answer is
that I have taken legal advice on this matter, and I am assured that I am
acting within my rights. With regard to the question as to where the
location of the Advisory Committee would be, it would be in this
country.
Mr Saklatvala: I desire to ask if in the case of Frank Fitzgerald of 3 Cave
Street, the Rt. hon gentleman has not made a mistake and mixed him up
with another Irishman of the same name, and whether he has deported
entirely the wrong person? Is the Rt. hon gentleman aware that this
216
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
particular Frank Fitzgerald is not the Frank Fitzgerald concerned in a
machine-gun case recently, and is he aware that this particular Frank
Fitzgerald has never functioned in any of the Irish organisations after
the establishment of the Free State in Southern Ireland, and is he aware
that he has actually resigned his membership of the Self-determination
League and has he not deported the wrong man?
Viscount Curzon: Is this the man who was arrested in the National
Liberal Club?
Mr Jones: He was arrested in his own house.
The debate was resumed on 14th March 1922.
Mr Saklatvala asked the Prime Minister if he will place upon the Table
of the House immediately a full report of written as well as verbal
communications that passed between the Irish Free State Authorities
and the Prime Minister or any other members of the British Cabinet
which caused the Home Secretary to issue orders for the arrest and
deportation of numerous citizens to be tried by ordinary and
extraordinary Courts in the Irish Free State?
Mr Bridgeman: I have been asked to reply. No, Sir. I can add nothing to
the statement made by the Attorney-General and myself on Monday
last. As I explained then, nothing more than internment is proposed at
the present time.
Mr Saklatvala: Is it within the constitutional power of the government of
this country to prevent the Irish Free State from taking any measures
against persons who are now deported and interned there?
Mr Bridgeman: I should like to see the question on the Paper before I
answer it.
Mr Maxton: (by private notice) asked the under-secretary to the Scottish
Board of Health if he is aware that James Hicky, Gallowgate, Glasgow,
one of the men deported to Ireland on the night of Saturday 10th March,
is a native of Glasgow, the son of a Glasgow policeman, and that a
prominent local clergyman is prepared to testify to his complete
innocence of any connection with Irish rebel organisations, and if in
view of these facts he will take immediate steps to restore this man to
217
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
his home?
Capt. Elliot (Parliamentary Under-Sec. for Health, Scotland): Each of
the persons interned was made aware, by the terms of the Internment
Order, a copy of which was served on him, that it is open to him to
submit representations against the Order. Any such representations will
be referred to the Advisory Committee to be presided over by Lord
Trevethin. Representations from any other persons who may have
personal knowledge of a particular case will be considered.
It should be remembered that no Committee had as yet been set up, so that
anyone wrongfully interned had to wait in prison until such time as there was
a committee to hear their case!
Mr Saklatvala (by private notice) asked the Prime Minister if he will
inform the House what arrangements, if any, have been made, either by
His Majesty’s government or the Free State government, to give the
persons deported from this country to Ireland, there to be interned, an
opportunity of communicating with their friends in order that legal
advice may be provided for those of the prisoners who desire it; and
further, will the British government take steps to ensure that the legal
advisers of the deportees proceeding to Ireland from England shall be
allowed freedom of access to them for the purpose of advising as to an
appeal to the Advisory Committee?
Mr Bridgeman: The Free State government will see that every
reasonable opportunity is afforded to these persons to communicate
with their friends in order to procure legal advice as to any
representations they may wish to make to the Advisory Committee, and
their legal advisers will be allowed freedom of access to them for this
purpose.
Mr Saklatvala: Who is going to judge as to the exact significance of the
word ‘reasonable’?
The debate continued, with Bridgeman being bombarded with questions—
many of which remained without a satisfactory answer. The House wanted to
know whether the internee could himself elect to appear before the Advisory
Committee (whenever it might be set up) and not just appear before it on a
summons from the Committee?
James Maxton pressed home his point concerning the Glasgow internee who
218
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
was British-born and who had been handed over to a foreign government,
against whom there was no prima facie case; could he be returned home
forthwith? On being told he must apply to the Advisory Committee (still not in
existence), Maxton asked Bridgeman, “I am bringing it before you. Is this
Advisory Committee to supersede your powers, suspending the ordinary law of
the land?”
Ramsay Macdonald asked for a guarantee that the Committee would be set up
without delay. Mr Buchanan followed this by asking whether, if it were proved
that any of these persons are completely innocent, and have suffered any
monetary loss or loss of situation, the Home Secretary would grant any
compensation to them. (This was, later, to become quite a threat to the
government, and to save themselves from liability for heavy damages, they
passed an Act of Indemnity.)
Mr Jones again asked why English-born men and women could not be
indicted and tried in the usual way in a British court of law, if it was thought
that they were guilty of some breach of the law. Mr Sexton (Labour) asked
whether or not he, as a member of the House, could vouch for one of the
detainees who was known to him since boyhood and who had no connections
with any revolutionary Party. Mr Sexton was told he could only submit his
statement to the as-yet-unborn Advisory Committee.
Mr Maxton caused something of a stir when he asked the Home Secretary if
arrangements could be made for him to visit one of his constituents in the
place of internment in Dublin at the weekend. Although pressed on the point,
the Home Secretary declined to give a reply.
Mr Saklatvala: (by private notice) asked the Home Secretary whether he
has received an assurance from the Irish Free State government that the
persons arrested and deported to Ireland are sent there for internment
only, and that prior to their release and return to this country, no charge
will be made against them, rendering these persons liable to trial and
sentence?
Mr Bridgeman: Yes, Sir... nothing more than internment is proposed at
present. If it should be desired later to proceed against any of the
persons concerned on specific charges, the assent of HM government
would first be obtained, and the subsequent procedure would be that
provided by the Indictable Offences Act.
219
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Mr Saklatvala: Will the Home Secretary make clear as to where that trial
is to take place which is forecast to take place subsequently?
Mr Bridgeman: It depends on where the offence has been committed.
Mr Saklatvala: Does the Act provide for the place where they can be
tried? Under the Act, can they be tried outside Great Britain if their
offence was committed in Great Britain?
Mr Bridgeman: I am not quite sure to what Act the hon gentleman is
referring.
Mr Saklatvala: The Indictable Offences Act.
Mr Thorne: (Labour) If anyone can prove that he is British and born in
England, will he have a chance of being tried in England?
Mr Pringle: Can the Rt. hon gentleman say whether any of these men
and women deported from this country are liable to be tried by court
martial by the Free State Army in Ireland?
Mr Saklatvala: May I have an answer to my question?
Mr Bridgeman: It depends on the place where the offence was
committed.
Mr Thorne: May I have an answer to my question?
Mr Bridgeman: Certainly. I am not certain they will be tried at all. (Hon.
members: ‘Oh!’) But if the hon member means will they be heard by the
Advisory Committee, I shall certainly make representation in that sense
to that Committee.
Mr Thorne: The rt hon gentleman says he does not know whether they
will be tried. Then, in the name of common sense, what have they been
pinched for?
Mr Maclean (Labour): The Home Secretary says that the individuals
who have been deported will, if they are to be tried, be tried in the
country where the offence took place. Will he state whether it is not the
case that all these individuals have been arrested under a charge of
conspiring in this country against the Irish Free State, and in that case,
will he inform the House what was the sense of deporting them to
another country instead of trying them in this?
Mr Bridgeman: I think it would be unsatisfactory if I were to try to give,
220
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
offhand, an answer to a long question like that...
Mr McEntee (Labour): In view of the inability of the Rt. hon gentleman
to give us any information in reply to the question, can he tell us, in the
case of these English-born subjects, if he will be prepared to admit them
to bail until he makes up his mind?
Mr Buchanan: May I ask you a question, Mr Speaker? I want your
advice in this matter. I wish to move the Adjournment, owing to the
unsatisfactory answer on the legal point by the Home Secretary. I wish
to know if I am in order in doing so.
Mr Speaker: We had the Adjournment moved on this question on
Monday last.
Mr Pringle (Liberal): Has not a new point arisen, in this respect, that
today the Home Secretary is unable to give us any clear answer as to the
liability to trial of persons who have been deported from this country?
Mr Speaker: There is perhaps this point— the question whether persons
of British birth will be allowed to appear. But I understand the Home
Secretary to say that he is going to make representations to the Advisory
Committee. What I would suggest is that on this point a question could
be put on Monday...
Mr Lansbury: I wish to ask the Home Secretary a question, of which I
have given him Private Notice, namely, whether his attention has been
called to the arrest and deportation to Ireland of Miss Barrett, lately
residing at 24 Campbell Road, Bow and Miss Kathleen Brooks, lately
residing at Whitehall Court, Highgate; whether he is aware that Miss
Barrett and her father and mother were all born in this country, and are
consequently British citizens, and since the signing of the Peace treaty
between England and Ireland she has taken no part in any agitation
either against the British or the Free State government; and whether he
is aware that Miss Kathleen Brooks is also an English-born citizen, who
at the time of her arrest was in company with her sister; and that the
two ladies, being informed by the police officers that their orders were
to arrest Miss M. Brooks, the ladies themselves should decide which
should be taken; whether Kathleen volunteered to be arrested because
her sister is suffering from illness; whether also he is aware that the
221
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
warrants served on these ladies are dated 7th March and were served on
11th March; that consequently 4 days of the time allowed for appeal had
elapsed; and whether, under all the circumstances, and in order to
restore public confidence, the Home Secretary will ask the Free State
government to release these ladies forthwith and return them without
delay to this country?
Mr Bridgeman: I only made the order for the arrest and internment of
these ladies after being satisfied that there were good reasons for so
doing. (An hon member: ‘Which one?’) The lady who has been arrested.
If they desire to appeal against the provisions of the Orders, it is open to
them to make representations to me to be laid before the Advisory
Committee... I may add that I am satisfied that the Miss Brooks who was
arrested is the lady in respect of whom the Order was made.
Mr Lansbury: Does the Rt. hon gentleman contradict the statement that
the police officers admitted to these ladies that they didn’t know which
of them they wished to arrest, and that the ladies had to choose which
one should be arrested? Is that the method by which the Criminal
Investigation Department carries out its duties?
Mr Bridgeman: My information is that the lady they have arrested is the
one they intended to arrest.
Mr Saklatvala: Is it the Home Secretary’s conviction that the lady
arrested is the right person based on the fact that, on Monday
afternoon, two policemen were inside the house when a letter was
delivered by a postman simply addressed to ‘Miss M. Brooks’ and was
taken away by the policemen as a proof of there being a Miss M. Brooks.
Mr Bridgeman: This is the first time I have heard of that.
Mr Lansbury: Does the Rt. hon gentleman deny the statement that the
police did not know which of these ladies they were sent to arrest?
It might be of interest here to quote a letter sent to my brother Beram after
Father’s death by a Miss Delia MacDermott of Bloomsbury, London:
“I wish to say [that Saklatvala] took the first step to offer help in the case
of the Irish deportees who were wrongfully arrested and sent to Ireland
in the year 1923. My sister, Miss S. MacDermott, was amongst them,
and in attending to her affairs when she was imprisoned, I received your
222
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Father’s circular letter sent to her address. To me, it was the first ray of
hope in a very difficult situation.”
It is tantalising that Miss MacDermott gave no indication of the help that was
offered. But she refers to it as a circular letter and I feel safe in assuming that
Father sent the letter, whatever it contained, to all the deportees; it apparently
brought some hope and comfort to at least one of the recipients and, perhaps,
to many more of them.
On the 19th March 1923, the question of the legal position of the deportees
was debated again under ‘Deportations from Great Britain’ In reply to
question put to the Home Secretary by the Leader of the Opposition, Ramsay
MacDonald, came the following:
The Attorney-General (Sir Douglas Hogg): I have been asked to reply.
The arrangement with the Irish Free State government is that no
proceedings shall be instituted against any of these persons anywhere
without the consent of my Rt. hon Friend the Home Secretary. My Rt.
hon Friend will, of course, have to be satisfied that there is a prima facie
case before giving his consent, and he has arranged to consult with me
in any matter of legal difficulty or doubt. [One would have thought a
prima facie case should have been established before people were
carried away by ship in the middle of the night to be transported to a
foreign gaol!]
When the consent is given, the person to be tried will be placed in
exactly the same position, and dealt with in exactly the same way, as if
he had not been deported. If the crime is one committed in England and
triable there, application will be made to an English magistrate for a
summons or warrant, and the case will be tried before an English
magistrate and sent for trial by him, if a prima facie case is made out.
If the crime is one committed in Ireland and triable there, a warrant will
be applied for before an Irish magistrate. It will be backed by an English
magistrate under the provisions of Section 12 of the Indictable Offences
Act of 1848, and the accused person will then be tried before the Irish
magistrate, and by him committed for trial, if a prima facie case is made
out. Whether the trial takes place before an English or an Irish
magistrate, the accused person will be present.
Mr W. Thorn: As far as these people are concerned, has the Habeas
223
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Corpus Act been suspended?
No reply was forthcoming to this question!
Captain Benn: Will the Rt. hon gentleman say whether these deportees
will have the right, if they desire, of personal access to the Advisory
Committee?
The Attorney-General: Yes, and I ought to say that the third member of
the Advisory Committee is Sir Matthew Wallace, JP, ex-President of the
Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, member of the Royal Commission,
Defence of the Realm... and member of the War Compensation Court.
There will be access to the Committee for any of the deportees who wish
to see them.
Mr Rhys Davies: What means were there for a solicitor on behalf of
these deportees to get into touch with his client during the last few days,
and particularly, what is the position in respect of George Clancy, of
Manchester, whose solicitor sent a letter on behalf of this man which
has not yet reached him?
The Attorney-General: I was not aware of the matter referred to in the
last part of the hon member’s question, but if he will send me a
statement of the facts, I will be glad to enquire into them.
Mr Buchanan: Is the Rt. hon gentleman aware that certain Scottish
members made an effort to get across to meet certain of their
constituents, and were not provided with those full facilities to which
they thought they were entitled for conversation with these men and
inquiry into the subject?
The Attorney-General: In answer to a question like this, I gave last week
a statement made by the Irish Free State government that the internees
would be allowed to see their legal advisers on points of law and to
receive communications from their friends; but I must leave it to the
Free State governments to make regulations with regard to other
people.
Mr Buchanan: Seeing that the British government take the
responsibility for arresting and deporting these men, why cannot they
take the responsibility of allowing, without the sanction of the Free
State, Scottish members to be with these men? Is the reason that they
224
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
are afraid we might get to know the real position and the real reason
why these men were arrested?
Further questions and answers were exchanged between several members and
the Attorney-General on the subject of access to the deportees of their friends,
legal advisers and members of Parliament.
Mr Clynes: Have any steps been taken to inform fully the persons
arrested of the conditions and facilities covering the replies which he
has given this afternoon?
The Attorney-General: I am afraid that I would like to have notice of
that question.
Lt. Col. Archer-Shee (Unionist): Is it not a fact that these men have been
deported under a Statute made by this House which expressly
suspended the Habeas Corpus Act with reference to rebellion in Ireland,
and that these men are simply shut up and that there is no necessity
whatever for all these questions?
Mr Buchanan: In view of the unsatisfactory answers, may I be allowed
to move the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent
public importance, namely, the failure of the government to provide
access to the interned persons by their parliamentary representatives.
Mr Speaker: The hon member must ask leave to make that Motion when
we have disposed of the other questions.
Mr Pringle: May I repeat the question of the hon member for Bridgeton
(Mr Maxton) which the Home Secretary did not answer, namely,
whether the Home Office or the Scottish Office actually know the
regulations regarding access made by the Irish Free State government?
Mr Bridgeman: I should like to have notice of that question. Obviously, I
do not want to misquote.
Mr Shakespeare May I ask whether, on the Internment Orders which
the Rt. hon gentleman signed, the place of internment was in Ireland?
Mr Bridgeman: Yes, Sir.
Mr Shakespeare: How is it that such a place of internment can be
mentioned, considering that Ireland is now outside the jurisdiction of
the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act?
Mr Bridgeman: The warrant said a place within the Free State portion of
225
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Ireland.
Mr Shakespeare: Is it not a fact that the Free State is now outside the
jurisdiction of the Restoration of Order Act?
Mr Bridgeman: No, Sir.
Two days after this exchange in the House, the Daily Herald proclaimed in a
front-page head-line, ‘Dublin Thunderbolt for Mr Bridgeman— Act for
Deportation Said to be Dead— Mr Cosgrove’s Denials:’
“A thunderbolt from Dublin was launched yesterday at Mr Bridgeman,
Home Secretary in Mr Bonar Law’s government. ‘Under whatever
authority these men were deported and detained, ‘ said President
Cosgrove in the Dail, ‘it was not under the Restoration of Order in
Ireland Act’. This statement is in direct contradiction to Mr Bridgeman’s
reply on March 12th to Mr Ramsay MacDonald.
“On that day the following question was asked and answered:
“Mr Macdonald: ‘Has my Rt. hon Friend acted under the Restoration of
Order Ireland Act Regulation?’
“Mr Bridgeman: ‘Yes, I have...’
“Mr Cosgrove declared yesterday that the Act, so far as Ireland was
concerned, had expired. ‘It might be the legal opinion in Great Britain,’
he added, ‘that the Act was still in force in Britain, but he thought it had
not been suggested that that was so with regard to Ireland.’ Mr Cosgrove
repudiated the suggestion that British Ministers had authority in the
Free State’s Affairs.”
Questions regarding the legal niceties of British citizens being deported to a
foreign country for trial continued. Saklatvala asked, “May we take it for
granted from the answers given that there is no possibility of any of the
interned persons being tried by Court Martial in Ireland?”
To which the Attorney-General replied: “Certainly, there is no such
possibility.”
In the session on 19th March, under ‘Written Answers’, Saklatvala asked the
Home Secretary whether, in sanctioning the deportation of 110 persons from
here to Ireland, he had taken into consideration a precedent of any case of
sending prisoners from areas where martial law does not exist to areas where
martial law is in operation; and, if so, were such decisions in favour of such
226
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
action being considered constitutional?
Mr Bridgeman: Yes, Sir. This consideration was before me... The point,
however, is not material, for, as I have already explained, it had been
arranged with the Free State before these persons were sent to Ireland
that no action other than internment would be taken without the
agreement of His Majesty’s government.
Mr Saklatvala asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that Miss Barrett
and other deportees were asked in Mountjoy Prison to sign pledges not
to work in future for the Republican Party in Great Britain; and, in view
of his statement that the prisoners were sent over merely for
internment, was he consulted by the Free State authorities before they
attempted to exact such pledges from the internees; is he aware that in a
letter sent by Eileen Cullinan to her mother, all portions were cut out
excepting 3 lines at the commencement and 3 lines at the end; was this
censorship exercised by the Home Office with knowledge of the
offending paragraphs or was it done by the Irish Free State; and will he
see that the rights of the interned persons to communicate with their
families and friends are protected?
Mr Bridgeman: I am informed by the Free State government that no
deportees have been asked to sign pledges, as stated in the question, not
to work in future for the Republican Party in Great Britain; and that the
terms of the undertaking which a number of prisoners in Ireland have
given, and which it would be open to any internees to give, are as
follows: T promise that I will not use arms against the Parliament
elected by the Irish people or government for the time being responsible
to that Parliament, and that I will not support in any way any such
action, not will I interfere with the property or the persons of others.’
The letter referred to was censored by the Free State authorities as
mentioned. Internees are allowed to communicate with their relatives
and friends subject to censorship, and I have no reason to think that
they are being unduly restricted in this respect.
On 22nd March 1923, the Daily Herald reported on the front page: ‘All’s Not
Well With Irish Deportees. Disquieting statements Reach This Country.
Brother’s Futile Visit:’
“Disquieting statements as to the conditions under which the deportees
227
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
from England and Scotland are interned in Mountjoy Prison, Dublin,
have reached the Reverend Herbert Dunnico MP, who is Treasurer of
the fund for their legal defence and for the assistance of their relatives.
“Notwithstanding the ministerial assurances that the internees would be
allowed to communicate with their friends, it appears that all letters and
parcels have been stopped since last Saturday.
“Mr Francis Brooks, brother to Miss Kathleen Brooks, one of the
internees, has returned from Dublin where he made applications to the
Acting-Governor of Mountjoy Prison to be allowed to see his sister. He
states that he was informed in reply that neither he nor a legal adviser
could be allowed to see her.
“Mr Brooks also wanted to supply his sister, who was in delicate health,
with a change of clothing, but was told that if she made application to
the doctor she would be provided with prison clothing.”
The same newspaper, two days later, reported that:
“...the legality of the Irish deportations was challenged in the High Court
yesterday when Mr Patrick Hastings KC applied on behalf of Mr Art
O’Brien, one of the internees, for a writ of Habeas Corpus.
“Counsel explained that the affidavit on which he moved was that of Mr
O’Brien’s sister. The rule required that the affidavit should be made by
the person in custody, but there were peculiar circumstances in the case
in the fact that Mr O’Brien was interned in Ireland and it would be
impossible to get an affidavit from him in time for the application to be
made this term.
“Mr Hastings quoted authority to show that the affidavit might be made
—and in fact had been made on occasions by other persons, upon
evidence that the person concerned was prevented from making such an
affidavit. Counsel added that a telegram had been received from Mr
O’Brien, stating that he desired application to be made for his release.
“Mr Justice Avory asked what grounds there were for saying Mr O’Brien
was coerced, or for any other reason was unable to make application.
“Mr Hastings said there was none. The Crown, it appeared, had made
arrangements whereby an attorney might see a man interned in Ireland,
and if time and means permitted a solicitor could go to Ireland to get
228
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
the affidavit...
“(Mr W.H. Thompson, solicitor, London, may try to see Mr O’Brien
during a weekend visit to Dublin.)
“Rev. H. Dunnico quoted another instance of a solicitor being refused
permission to see one of the internees, Mr Macmahon. Mr Bridgeman
promised that if given particulars, he would communicate with Dublin
and facilitate the visit.”
On the 26th March 1923, the Daily Herald carried the following item, under
headlines proclaiming ‘Deportees Challenge Home Secretary— Imprisoned
Men Say Statements are Deliberate and Contemptible Falsehoods:’
“A striking indictment of the Home Secretary’s high-handed and illegal
methods of rounding up men and women, against whom no charge is
made, is contained in a letter written to him by some of the Irish
deportees now incarcerated in Mountjoy Prison. Passages from this
document have been sent to the Daily Herald by Mr S. Saklatvala
(Labour MP for Battersea) who states that he will today publish the
letter in full.
“The letter, dated 18th March 1923, was written from C-Wing of
Mountjoy Prison addressed to Mr Bridgeman. It ends by speaking of the
Advisory Committee as a body created by the accusers before which the
accused are to go to prove their innocence. They refuse to have anything
to do with it. The letter was signed by 28 internees.” [The letter was, in
fact, signed by 32 internees.]
House of Commons Hansard for 26th March 1923 reports under ‘Written
Answers Ireland— Deportations From Great Britain’ the following debate:
Mr Shinwell asked the Home Secretary 1) On what grounds Ambrose
Kenny, of Bathgate, was deported and in which part of Ireland was he
interned; who is to be responsible for the maintenance of his wife and
family; 2) on what grounds Patrick Hyland, of Winchburgh, was
deported and in which part of Ireland was he interned, and who is to be
responsible for the maintenance of his wife and family?
Capt. Elliot: I have been asked to reply to these questions. Ambrose
Kenny and Patrick Hyland have been interned in Ireland on the ground
that they are persons suspected of acting, having acted or being about to
229
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
act in a manner prejudicial to the restoration and maintenance of order
in Ireland. They are at present interned in Mountjoy Prison, Dublin. The
point raised in the third part of these 2 questions is now under
consideration. [The men had been in prison for two weeks— presumably
the families were expected to go hungry and their rent remain unpaid
while the ponderous ‘consideration’ was taking place.]
Mr Trevelyan asked the Home Secretary whether he will publish the
correspondence which took place between himself and the Free State
government in relation to the action taken under the Restoration of
Order (Ireland) Act?
Mr Bridgeman: I regret that I cannot add to the very full statements on
this question made by the Attorney-General and myself in recent
debates.
Mr Morris asked the Home Secretary whether the Advisory Committee
recently appointed under Regulation 14B is going to sit in Great Britain
or in the Irish Free State?
Mr Bridgeman: The Committee proposes to sit in this country.
Mr Saklatvala asked the Home Secretary if he has received direct
statements of their case and claims from the deportees in Ireland; and,
if so, will he place them upon the Table of the House, and also copies of
any replies that he may make to the same?
Mr Bridgeman: I have received representations from one of these
persons and his case is being referred to the Advisory Committee. I have
also received a lengthy protest in general terms, signed by 32 of the
deportees, in which they challenge the legality of the action taken by
HM government and decline to recognise the Advisory Committee. The
answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
Mercifully, the deportees and opposition MPs were not the only people to
challenge the legality of the Home Secretary’s autocratic and dictatorial orders
to arrest and intern in a foreign country, without trial, these British men and
women. As has already been mentioned, Patrick Campbell applied for a writ of
habeus corpus on behalf of two of the internees and the case of Mr O’Brien
was to prove once and for all, in the most public way possible, the illegality of
230
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Mr Bridgeman’s instructions to the arresting police. Patrick Hastings lost his
application for a writ of habeus corpus in respect of Mr O’Brien but appealed
against the decision given by Mr Justice Avory on the 23rd March.
On 10th May 1923, the Manchester Guardian reported the case under the
headlines, ‘Deportations Not Legal— O’Brien Case Goes Against The
government’
“The Court of Appeal yesterday unanimously reversed the decision of
the Lord Chief Justice’s Court and decided that the deportation of Art
O’Brien to the Irish Free State was illegal. The Court therefore granted
O’Brien’s application for a writ of Habeus Corpus, and ordered the
Home Secretary to produce him in court next Wednesday. O’Brien is at
present in a Dublin prison.
“It was also held that recent Orders in Council made by the government
in support of the order for internment were ultra vires. The Attorney
General announced that he would appeal to the House of Lords and ask
for the case to be heard on Monday. The decision in the O’Brien case
affects all the deportees, numbering over a hundred.”
The arrogant optimism which induced the government of the day to appeal to
the House of Lords is a frailty suffered by all too many governments. Their
pride, most aptly, came before their fall.
On the 15th March, the Guardian reported the case once again in the following
humiliating terms (humiliating for the government, that is, and much to the
jubilation of all the internees and their supporters):
“It must be a long time since a British government has been placed in so
mortifying a position by legal blunders of its own as the present
government occupies after yesterday’s decision of the House of Lords.
Last week the Court of Appeal decided that the deportation of Mr
O’Brien— and presumably of his 100 fellow-deportees from England to
Ireland— was illegal and that Mr O’Brien must be brought up for release.
That branded blunder number one. The government thereupon
appealed to the House of Lords, and now it appears that this appeal
itself was another legal blunder— the House of Lords has no jurisdiction
in the matter. To laymen, the law as laid down yesterday by a majority
of the Law Lords, seems highly reasonable...
“The Home Office, which we taxpayers supply at some expense with
231
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
legal advisers, ought never to have butted its head against a wall with
such a high degree of stopping power as the law of Habeus Corpus...
And now, to save the Home Secretary from the very natural claims
which the persons improperly arrested are likely to make for pecuniary
or other satisfaction, there will probably be an Act of Indemnity; that is
to say, a special law that the Home Secretary is to be none the worse off
for having acted unlawfully. Such special laws are not desirable things;
the usual custom of allowing illegal acts to make their authors
uncomfortable is much to be preferred.
“Still, the Home Secretary acted as agent for us all and ‘did it for the
best’ though he did it badly; so, according to precedent, he has to be
indemnified. And as the persons illegally treated must not be damnified,
no doubt they will have to be compensated out of public money. Thus, at
every turn of the whole business, the poor taxpayer pays...”
In fact, the particular Act of Indemnity that was passed, made no provision for
the wronged deportees to be given any compensation except for actual
expenses and losses incurred, and there is no doubt that many of them
suffered financial hardship to the point of ruin, and were, in the words of the
Manchester Guardian, “damnified.” Many lost their jobs and no doubt
suffered great hardship on their release by a grudging, reluctant and one
might almost claim, a vindictive government.
As to Bridgeman, he did have the grace to offer his resignation, but this was
not accepted by the Prime Minister. (The Prime Minister, Andrew Bonar Law,
had been absent from duty for some months when this crisis arose and Stanley
Baldwin was acting for him in the House of Commons. Indeed, Law, suffering
from cancer of the throat, was to resign from office only a few days after these
events). It is possible that in other circumstances Mr Bridgeman’s resignation
might have been accepted. His departure might have restored a little dignity to
the government after the humiliating debacle it had suffered. It is to be hoped
that the Home Secretary also had the grace to feel somewhat abashed when
facing all those opposition MPs who had questioned the legality of his actions
all along.
There is a usually unspoken but deep-rooted myth among the voters in Great
Britain, thankfully dispelled occasionally, that right-wing governments are
more efficient than left-wing ones. Well, this was only one of many instances
232
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
when the Labour and Liberal members were proved right and the
Conservatives were proved to be in the wrong. O, yes, it does sometimes
happen, I’m afraid! It is not that they are right in the sense of right versus
wrong, it is just that they seem to be more persuasively plausible.
Ramsay MacDonald, opposing the introduction of the Bill of Indemnity
proposed by Stanley Baldwin (acting for the Prime Minister), said:
...a decision was made without that discretion which should have been
exercised and without due consideration for the constitutional rights of
the people arrested. Hon. members on this side of the House, my hon
Friend the member for Bow and Bromley (Mr Lansbury) the hon
member for North Battersea (Mr Saklatvala), and various other
members, in the early days of the arrests and deportations, brought here
case after case where the warrants were irregularly served. The illegality
of his actions had been voiced loudly and he did not listen. He,
therefore, has no right to claim indemnity.
...the deportees have no means of proving that they were deported
illegally (when looking for jobs or facing their employers). The
government are in honour bound to do justice to these men.
...I do say that never in the whole history of this country, since legal
processes were established firmly and fixedly, was an Indemnity Bill less
worthy of support than the one which is before us now.
Saklatvala made the following contribution to the debate:
I beg to submit to the Committee considerations rather from a practical
than merely from a political point of view. In the first place I submit that
the amendment put forward from this side really restores to the
Indemnity Act its correct as well as its impartial character. If it is to be
an Act of Indemnity, surely we are not supposed to legislate for the
partial benefit of a few citizens to the detriment of other citizens. Why
not indemnify everyone who has suffered from these erroneous
measures?
It is not merely the Home Secretary, it is not merely the police
constable, it is not merely the government officers who have been put in
the wrong or have suffered from these errors and are seeking relief.
There are 112 victims. Why not indemnify them, and make this a real
Act of Indemnity, giving an indemnity to everyone from the effects of
233
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
this most unfortunate and precipitate action that the Home Secretary
was misled into taking under faulty advice?
From this point of view I suggest that, in order to make the Indemnity
Act complete, the government ought to allow this kind of civil action to
be taken. [The Act as proposed shielded the Home Secretary from both
civil and criminal action— an amendment suggested by the opposition
indemnified him only from criminal and not from civil proceedings].
I will urge another point, as to the difference between allowing the
sufferers to take action under an existing and well-established law and
their taking action under some new and speculative law. Of these 112
sufferers the majority, almost all, are people of very limited means-
people without means, we may say. It is impossible for many of them to
spend money speculatively on legal advice and on counsel, to go
speculatively before a new tribunal and take their chance whether they
will get their reward or whether they will be penalised by having to pay a
higher cost then the reward they get. [Lloyd George had suggested
setting up a tribunal to assess damages for the internees.]
Under the established law they know their position. It would be more or
less a formal action, an inexpensive action, both to the state and to the
individual sufferers: it would be a nominal action. People know exactly,
under the well-defined law, what their rights are. There is very little
legal argument to be proceeded with, and in that way we not only
simplify the position of the sufferers but render them far happier and
give them a greater amount of justice than by throwing them on the
mercy of an unknown tribunal, to take their chance of fighting out a
lawsuit the result of which they would not know.
There is another consideration. I suppose the Committee now realise we
are all chastened, that the opinions of the lawyers are, after all, not
infallible, or, at least, have been several times in conflict with the
opinions of other lawyers. A few weeks ago the position was considered
to be unshakeable at law, in spite of all the warnings given even by some
competent lawyers from the Labour Benches, who had developed a
sense, not only of seeing the law but even of seeing the people’s point of
view, after belonging to the people’s party. We had it pointed out then
that there was some chance of the law being faulty. I submit again to the
234
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
same lawyers that even this Indemnity Act may in itself still be a legal
delusion. I still doubt the legality of this Act of Indemnity itself. I still
would submit —
The Chairman: The hon member seems to me to be raising a broader
question than that dealt with in the amendment.
Mr Saklatvala: I am coming to the amendment. I submit that the real
indemnity to the Home Secretary will come not by this Act forced upon
the people but that it can only come by the mutual consent of the
sufferers.
The Chairman: That is really quite outside the amendment. I must ask
the hon member to confine himself to the question of criminal and civil
proceedings.
Mr Saklatvala: I am submitting that, if the sufferers are given the
protection which is sought in this amendment, then they would be an
agreeable party to accepting the position which is offered to them. If the
government will not accept this amendment, and will force an issue
upon the sufferers, then they will be inviting trouble again by inducing
the sufferers to challenge the validity of this very Act, which seems to be
in defiance of certain sections of the original Habeas Corpus Act, which
does not permit the King, or his heirs, executors, or officers to set aside
the punishment or indemnity levied under the Habeas Corpus Act.
The Chairman: That would be a relevant argument on the 2nd or 3rd
Reading, but not on this amendment.
Mr Saklatvala: I submit to your ruling. To cut the argument short, I
submit that, if the Labour Party’s amendment, as it is now suggested in
the most friendly spirit to the government, be accepted, it is only then
that the government Officers will get the indemnity that they are
seeking. If they are seeking a one-sided indemnity by depriving the
sufferers of their rights, they will provoke a fight once again on the part
of the sufferers and they will themselves suffer.
When the Indemnity Bill came up for the Third Reading on the 1st June, Mr
Buchanan, (Labour member for Gorbals) “felt in duty bound to protest against
its passing.” He said:
I look upon it as one of the worst features of the political life of this
235
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
country, that a government should arrest persons illegally and deport
them to another country, and then, having done that, pass a Bill to
condone its action... Then, to get the opposition to agree, they say, ‘We
will compensate the victims of our action’... They can pile up the
compensation as high as they care, but it does not matter to me; the
thing that matters to me, much more than either the Labour Party or the
Conservative Party or the Liberal Party, or anything else, is the freedom
of the individual. If you are going to interfere with the right of a person
to have opinions, to be free to express them within his country, without
being deported to another country, then you are going to violate all that
is great and good in this country... I feel it my duty to enter my protest
against this obnoxious Bill.”
He was followed by Mr F. Gray (Liberal member for Oxford) who protested
equally strongly against the Bill. In the course of a long and strong speech, he
said:
What penalty has this government paid for the mistake it has made by a
responsible Minister? In the days of Disraeli or of Gladstone, or of the
late Lord Salisbury, it would have been impossible for a mistake of this
magnitude, infringing the liberty of the subject, to be made without
bringing about the resignation of the government of the day...
I do not know whether any useful purpose will be served by my going
heroically into the Lobby with the Hon member for Gorbals, (Mr
Buchanan) I do not know, indeed, whether we two together would be
allowed to go alone into the Lobby,, but certainly, at every stage I shall
protest against, object to, and obstruct a Bill which I believe to be
contrary to the Constitution of this country.”
Mr Saklatvala: The sentiments expressed by the hon member for
Gorbals (Mr Buchanan) are really the sentiments of many of us,
although perhaps differently expressed, and though we may not have a
chance of voting in the Lobby directly against this Bill, because that,
perhaps, would be a needless process, we must not be taken on that
account to be supporters of the principles embodied in the Bill-
principles against which protests have been practically expressed more
than once.
The hon member for Oxford City (Mr F. Gray) suggested that, if a
236
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Liberal or Conservative Parliament in the past had adopted such a
measure, the government would have resigned as a whole.. I may
perhaps remind the House that a Liberal government has taken similar
acts in deporting persons without trial, and interning them. That
happened under the regime of Lord Morley [Secretary of State for India]
in my poor country, India, but it being the act of a Liberal Minister of a
Liberal government, neither had the self-respect to resign. It is another
illustration of the saying that what is sauce for the gander is not always
sauce for the goose. Liberalism has its different faces to be presented to
different people according to their particular convenience. I now appeal
to the government on two points.
I want to know whether they are going to say— with this indemnity
granted to them with a certain amount of hopefulness on the part of the
Labour members— that they will carry out in spirit the little concessions
they are making to the deportees in a larger measure than has been
indicated in some quarters. I appeal to the noble Lord to reflect on his
remarks with regard to particular persons among the deportees and tell
us how he intends to apply his logic in the case of those against whom
further action is to be taken.
This Bill of Indemnity, as far as the deportees are concerned, is not a
bonus for good character, neither is it a penalty for bad character. It has
nothing to do with character. The damage to the deportees arises and
becomes due, not from any bad action on their part, but from the wrong
action of the government. In the case of those deportees against whom
the government can take no action, probably we may accept the plea
and give the benefit of it to the Home Secretary.
But there is another set of deportees whom the Home Secretary
interned, and against whom he is now taking definite action on the basis
of evidence captured at the time of their arrest. In those cases he had a
clear alternative in front of him. He could have taken action against
them but he preferred not to do so; he preferred to deport them without
charge or trial, and so in their case his crime was greater than it was in
the case of the other deportees. I submit that in their case the damage
arising out of the unwarrantable action of the Home Secretary-technical
though he may term it— gives them a more emphatic claim than exists in
237
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
the case of those against whom no proceedings are instituted.
I hope the words of the noble Lord will not prejudice the tribunal and
make the members of it think that these persons are entitled to less
damages on account of their bad character. Character has nothing to do
with it. These persons, in whose cases a legal course was open to the Rt
Hon .gentleman, are undoubtedly entitled to higher damages than are
the other deportees.
The Home Secretary gave us an apologia which, to my mind, was a little
worse than his crime. When he was appealed to not to prejudice the case
of persons still to be tried, he suggested that the fact that only 8 of the
deportees registered their protest with the Advisory Committee, was a
tacit admission that he had acted correctly in interning them. These
were ungenerous and clearly unjust observations for a representative of
the government to make.
The Home Secretary did know that in a written document sent to him
from Mountjoy Prison, it was clearly stated that internees challenged
the right of the Home Secretary to intern them. They challenged his
right under that particular Act, on the ground that it was void. The
Committee was established in pursuance of that Act which the internees
were challenging, and, on the particular occasion when they repudiated
the right of the Home Secretary any longer to act under that Act, they
naturally repudiated the authority of the Advisory Committee
established under that Act; and they not only clearly refused to go
before it, but 47 of the internees who, at first, hastily agreed to do so, on
this definite principle, withdrew their applications.
The mere fact, therefore, that only eight persons agreed finally to go to
the Advisory Committee was not any proof of their tacit admission of
the right of the Home Secretary to intern them, but was a higher protest
on their part against the entire action of the Home Secretary, and
against everything connected with the Act on which the Home Secretary
was, under a misapprehension, acting at the time.
These are the only two submissions that I desire to make to the
government. The best way of expressing their regret and their sense of
justice towards those who have been victimised for nothing is now to
put into application the relief that they are offering in the right spirit,
238
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
instead of applying wrong logic and raising technical objections against
the interest of poor men and women.
[Editor’s note: Saklatvala visited Ireland on at least two occasions. On 21st
April 1925 the Irish Times reported:
“The visit of Mr. Saklatvala, member of Parliament for North Battersea,
to Dublin has created only a languid interest among the general public.
He is an Indian Communist, whose ideal of government is the Soviet,
and his trip to the Free State last Sunday was undertaken, apparently,
with a view to the encouragement of Bolshevist principles in this
country. Mr. Saklatvala was accompanied by Mr. Robert Stewart, of
Dundee, also a Communist. A meeting was held in Sackville Street,
under the shade of a crimson banner which was sent by the Russian
proletariat to its Irish comrades; and after Mr. Saklatvala had spoken
for two tedious hours, Mr. Stewart announced that before the end of
next month he would have founded an organisation in the Free State for
the purpose of promoting the interests of a Workers' Republic...
“The revolutionary method, said Mr. Saklatvala, was the only course
that could befriend the labouring classes. If the workers wanted the
land, said Mr. Stewart, let them take it, and legalise their action
afterwards. The workers of Dublin had heard that sort of thing before
last Sunday. They know precisely how much it is worth, and the
amusement with which they listened to Mr. Saklatvala's vapourings was
significant of their attitude towards him and his like. Dublin has had a
taste of Communism and wants no more.”]
239
CHAPTER 12
The MP for Battersea and India
The Chaura Chauri case. Campaign for the release of Lala
Lajpat Raifrom prison. Parliamentary speech on the
doubling of the Salt Tax and on other Indian issues, 1923.
First visit to the USSR, August 1923.
On the 28th March 1923, Lord Curzon asked in the House if Battersea
Borough Council could not be prevented from purchasing a plot of land for
£4,000 for the purpose of building a showroom for the sale of electrical
appliances. Mr Saklatvala was quick to defend the local interests of his
constituency: “Is the Hon. and Gallant gentleman aware,” he asked, “that the
Battersea Borough Council, by running its own power station, are selling
electric current at fourpence-half-penny compared with eightpence in the
neighbouring Borough by a private company, and in view of this, and
especially when the landlord will not part with the land cheaper, will the Hon.
and Gallant member consider this a reasonable demand?” Thus the benefits of
privately- versus publicly-owned services were under discussion, then as now.
On the same day, Saklatvala asked the Home Secretary if he was aware that
the appeal against the death sentence of Bernard Pomeroy had been
dismissed; and, in view of the close similarity of the mental condition of
Pomeroy to that of Ronald True, is he prepared to have a medical enquiry into
this case in the same manner as in the case of Ronald True?
Mr Bridgeman replied that it did not appear that there is reason to believe that
the prisoner is insane and no medical enquiry would take place. This is an
illustration of Saklatvala’s ability to plead compassionately for individuals as
much as for the rights of millions.
[Editor’s note: Bernard Pomeroy, a shop assistant aged 25, was sentenced on
1st March for the murder of Alice May Cheshire in a motor cab on 5th
February, and was executed at Pentonville Prison on 5th April].
On the 16th April 1923, Stanley Baldwin presented his budget and, in the
debate that followed, Saklatvala made the following contribution:
240
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Mr Saklatvala: I wish to put a few questions to the Chancellor of the
Exchequer in order that we may understand some of the issues raised by
him in his speech. The Chancellor congratulated the country and the
government on the appreciation of all government stocks. I should like
to know from the Chancellor, who is a man of business experience, if he
does not attribute some of this apparent financial appreciation and
prosperity to the continuance of unemployment in this country.
There is no doubt that the public debt at the present moment is of a
different character from what it was in pre-war days. The finances of
this country as well as the finances of other countries are also of a
different character. Everywhere we suffer either from inflation of
currency, from paper currency or from unemployment. At the present
time Great Britain is in the happy position from the financial point of
view, and from the Bankers’ point of view, of not having continually to
put forward more paper money, because of a very substantial reduction
in the wage-earning power of the working classes.
I will not enter into any disputable figures, but it is admitted that
between three hundred million and five hundred million pounds a year
represents the reduced wage bill, so that the government has not to
produce so much money to be paid in wages. Is not that responsible for
this apparent prosperity?
There is another lesson in this apparent prosperity. Last year Income
Tax was reduced by a shilling in the pound, and it was supposed that all
these shillings would go back into industrial investment. Instead of that
it is obvious that those who have saved a shilling are less anxious to
spend it on private enterprise and are running to government Securities,
and that is the reason for the appreciation of government Securities.
That appreciation must be directly in proportion to the lack of private
enterprise and industrial investment. It shows how sadly money is
running away from industrial investment, and is trying to get some
earning on a safe basis from government Securities. If that is so, is it
wise for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give another reduction of
sixpence in the same fashion?
If reduction in the Income Tax was justifiable, was there not a way of
making that reduction so as to increase the buying capacity of the
241
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
consumer? That way of doing it is by exemption of all income up to
£250 from any Income Tax whatever. This is done in the case of large
companies, which, before making their Income Tax returns are
permitted to deduct the sums that are necessary for the requirements of
staff and plant.
The individual wage-earner’s staff and plant is his body. Why should we
not allow for the maintenance of that before he begins to be taxed? Who
can argue that four or five pounds is not a bare allowance to keep a man
and his family going? That is the staff by which he earns his income.
If the Chancellor could still see his way to give this relaxation out of the
Income Tax, not in the shape of another sixpence which will go into the
pockets of the dividend earner, but by exempting entirely incomes up to
£250 free from all taxes.” (Do these arguments not have a familiar ring
to them in 1989?)
...The Chancellor has referred to the interest on debt and the method of
lightening it as speedily as possible. He has not said much with regard
to his own successful manipulation of the American debt. The
Chancellor went to America. He made certain appeals to the reason of
the American financiers and was successful in inducing them to accept
3% interest.
Why should not the Chancellor, immediately after coming back, have
called together the British financiers and appealed to their sense of
patriotism and sense of human duty and told them that the Americans
had put them to shame by reducing the interest, and why should the
British financier not reduce the interest for the British poor and the
working classes? That remains yet to be explained. We were told in a
speech in the House that the question of interest on the debt is a
question of contract. When there was an interjection regarding the
American debt it was said that America voluntarily reduced the interest.
Why do not the British owners of the national stock offer voluntarily to
reduce their interest? Are they waiting for us to compel them to do so?
Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer made any attempt? It was his
sacred duty to this nation to make that attempt and if it has failed he has
not stood by the British nation as his duty required. If he made private
efforts and failed it was his duty to expose the names of all those
242
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
patriots who refused to act towards the British people as the American
financiers agreed to act. That information would be enlightening if the
Chancellor of the Exchequer would give it.
It has been well known that out of the national debt there is about 250
million which may be said to belong to the man in the street. The
remainder belongs to fairly comfortable people and to the big financiers
themselves, and those people, in paying Income Tax and other taxes, are
merely paying to themselves the interest on their national stock, and
they are not shouldering the burden of national revenue for education,
Army, Navy, and all the other estimated expenditure of the country...
At present, the burden of taxation for maintaining the services of the
country falls upon the poor people, and those who pay Income Tax out
of their incomes, which the poor people earn for them, are getting back
almost the whole sum in the shape of interest due to themselves on the
national stock which they hold. I submit for the serious consideration of
the Chancellor that he should devise a method by which the Income Tax
payer would do no more than he did before the War, paying a just
contribution towards the standing expenses of the country.
During this his first term in Parliament, Saklatvala, as a member of both the
Communist and Labour Parties, was anxious to promote cooperation between
the two and to give offence to neither (indeed, for several years this
cooperation was the hope and intention of the Communist Party). He had, in
any case, promised at the time of his endorsement as a Labour Candidate, to
follow the aims and the manifesto of the Labour Party. That he rebelled over
the Irish question was inevitable, but in general terms he toed the official
Labour Party line.
But on the question of India, he could be more independent, since he was
frequently asked for guidance in this sphere by the Labour leadership and his
expertise on Indian affairs was greatly valued by both the Labour and
Communist parties. He was the only MP in both parties who had extensive
experience and knowledge of Indian business and economics, Indian politics
and the suffering of the urban and peasant poor.
This does not mean that the Party took the advice which he proffered; indeed,
Saklatvala became more and more disillusioned with the Labour Party in this
field, seeing them as behaving more like the Liberal Party than a socialist one.
243
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
While Saklatvala demanded absolute and total freedom for India, (and for all
subject peoples) the Labour Party were loth to yield Great Britain’s power and
worked more for that power to be used benevolently than for it to be totally
relinquished. In most matters, Saklatvala balanced on a precarious tightrope
between the two parties but, since neither the Communist Party of Great
Britain nor the Communist International had at that time finally resolved how
to deal with imperialism and the colonies, when speaking on Indian affairs he
could afford to follow his individual line without upsetting the Communists or
the Labour Party.
As early as April, he had raised a question concerning a major mining disaster
in India and the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State (Earl
Winterton) revealed that until new legislation came into force in July, there
was no question of paying compensation to the bereaved families or wounded
miners. Saklatvala always used his position in Parliament to expose such
inhuman iniquities of the imperial system.
A little later, in May, he raised the question of the Demster Steamship
Company having introduced lower wages for Indian seamen as compared to
European ones.
In June he spoke on a far more serious and emotive issue, asking the Under-
secretary of State if the decision of the Appeal Court against 172 death
sentences in the Chauri Chaura case had been given; and, if so, would he tell
the House of the final verdict? And the chilling answer was that nineteen
death sentences had been confirmed, that in 110 cases they were commuted to
transportation for life, and that there were 38 acquittals.
Some of the life transportations were later shortened to a specified number of
years. Such was the fate of Indians who agitated in India for their freedom. I
can just imagine the outcry in the UK press today if we read of such sentences
being handed out in the Soviet Union against their freedom-loving dissidents.
Anyway, Saklatvala at least gave the harsh and ignominious facts a public
airing.
[Editor’s note: On February 5th 1922, after three members of the Non-
Cooperation Movement were killed by police in the town of Chauri Chaura in
Uttar Pradesh, the police station was set on fire by protesters, killing 22 of the
police occupants.]
On a similar theme, Saklatvala asked the Under-Secretary of State for India
244
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
whether he would state the nature of the offence proved against, and date and
term of sentence passed, on Lala Lajpat Rai, President of the 1st Trade Union
Congress of India, whether he is now reported to be suffering from
tuberculosis, and whether, bearing in mind this disease, his age, and his past
great services to India, the government will grant a remission of the remainder
of his sentence? The reply revealed that Mr Rai had been sentenced in March
1922 to one year’s simple imprisonment, and to one year’s rigorous
imprisonment under the Seditious Meetings Act, the sentences to run
consecutively. And no, the noble Earl was not prepared to put in a plea for
clemency.
When pressed by another member, Earl Winterton said, “...If enquiries are to
be made into the health of any one prisoner, there is no logical reason why
they should not be made into the health of hundreds of others...” What an
admission from a responsible Minister of a democratic British government,
that so many Indians whose only crime was to demand the same freedom that
Englishmen were so proud to enjoy, were languishing in Indian jails.
Several Labour members spoke in support of Father’s plea but the noble Earl
was adamant. Saklatvala had the last word: “Will the noble Lord consider that
a sentence of one year’s penal servitude or simple imprisonment should not be
permitted to be converted into sentence of death, if the state of the man’s
health is as reported?” In fact, Mr Rai was released from prison on 16th
August due to his ill health and, perhaps in part, to the intervention of
Saklatvala and his fellow members in the House.
[Editor’s Note: Lala Lajpat Rai led the special session of the Congress Party
that launched the noncooperation movement. Imprisoned from 1921 to 1923,
he was elected to the legislative assembly on his release. In 1928 he sustained
serious injuries by the police when leading a non-violent protest against the
Simon Commission and died less than three weeks later. His death
anniversary (November 17th) is one of several days celebrated as Martyrs’ Day
in India.]
On the 27th June 1923 Earl Winterton asked the House to pass a Bill enabling
the government of India to raise a loan in the UK for fifty million pounds to
spend on the development of the Indian railways.
Saklatvala pointed out that it was eventually the people of India who would
thereby incur the responsibility for repayment of the loan; and, while the
245
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
railways were in public ownership, quite a few of them were managed by
private companies acting as agents for the government of India. He spoke at
some length and to forceful purpose against the Bill, which, of course, was
carried anyway.
During the course of the debate, he was, at the request of a Labour member,
reminded by the Chairman that it was not in order for the issue of
nationalisation to be discussed. Saklatvala said, politely, “I will follow the
procedure you have been good enough to suggest.” His unfailing courtesy in
the House was remarked on more than once; while he spoke fearlessly and
honestly, he was invariably courteous; and while he himself was frequently
subjected to jeers and schoolboy rudeness, he was never guilty of such
ungentlemanly behaviour himself.
On April 21st 1923, the Workers’ Weekly had carried an article headlined
‘Indian Tax on Poverty’. It read:
“The Indian budget this year revealed a deficit of 12 million pounds—
this is largely due to the enormous expense of the Army (60% of the
budget). The government intend to make up the deficit on next years
estimates by doubling the salt tax, already one of the most oppressive
taxes on the millions of poverty-stricken Indian peasants. Even the
servile members of the Legislative Assembly refused to pass the tax, but
the Viceroy, Lord Reading, has once more made use of his supreme
dictatorial power, which allows him to override decisions of the
Assembly if he thinks fit, and he has re-imposed the measure. Thus the
mockery of the so-called reforms granted to India is again exposed...”
Everyone who saw the film Gandhi will recall his dramatic march across the
continent to the sea, followed by thousands of protesters against the tax; they
all demonstrated their civil disobedience by making salt on the sea shore in
contravention of the tax. They were unmercifully beaten by the police and
soldiers. And many of the marchers, including prominent leaders, in the
Indian political sphere, were imprisoned. This tax caused not only hardship
but great unrest and agitation among millions of people.
It was not till July 5th that Saklatvala made a major speech in the House on
the subject. It was reported the next day by the Evening News, without any
reference to the hardships of the Indian workers, but merely making frivolous
fun of Saklatvala:
246
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
“There were superbly turbaned Indians in the Gallery; and it was
reported that they had left their elephants in Palace Yard, grazing on the
lawns— do elephants graze, or do they feed on buns only?— However, no
doubt the police saw to that while, for the benefit of his countrymen, Mr
Saklatvala made a speech full of curry, real hot stuff, charging the
government with causing death, insanity and the worst kind of poverty
among Indians.”
This report was accompanied by a cartoon showing Saklatvala leaping in the
air, brandishing his outstretched arms wildly above his head, with flushed face
and lines radiating from his head suggesting the heat of his emotions. (When I
was a little girl, people often remarked on my likeness to Father and they
would say, “She’s just a little version of her Father!” And for years, I was
convinced that I looked like the ‘little versions’ of Father as depicted in
cartoons— so I had an anguished and unflattering view of what I looked like!)
Saklatvala’s speech started off mildly enough. He pointed out that the India
Office were reluctant to pass their work to the newly formed High Commission
for India, thereby creating administrative confusion and dissipation of money.
He said that gradualness would not work and that the responsibilities that
were to be handed over should be handed over immediately. (Was he perhaps
sending a little message to the Fabians within the Labour Party?)
He went on to mention another injustice, “which the people of India have felt
in a very small way, but there it is. I understand that the entire property
belonging to the India Office has been obtained from monies paid by India,
whereas no such charge has been levied for the Colonial Office on the
Colonies; and when the India Office falls back on its normal political
functions, to be carried on for this country, as it is now alleged, then I think
due compensation ought to be paid for the property that the India Office will
take over from the government of India completely under their own charge. In
fact, if that had been done this year, the whole of the vexatious argument
regarding the two and a half million pounds for salt would not have arisen.”
He then once again described the unfairness of loans being raised in the name
of the Indian people, who were totally ignorant about such matters, but who
would one day be called upon to repay vast sums of money raised by outsiders
in their name.
“I think these people will be perfectly right, some day, in saying, ‘We
247
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
know nothing about these loans. Somebody came to our country, raised
these loans in our name, and spent them on themselves just as they
pleased, and we cannot honourably or honestly be asked to repay these
loans.’ It will create a very serious situation when the people of India do
recover their consciousness, and, in view of this, not from any political
motives, but in view of these ordinary standards of honour in business
matters, the government of India must alter their methods of
continually raising loans in Great Britain... there is one phase of life
which the public politicians in Great Britain and India scarcely like to
touch, but which brings the people of this country and the people of
India into very intimate relationships.
“There may be troubles in the Punjab and a few riots in the streets of
India, and you believe that that is endangering the lives of some
Britishers, but I would point out that hon members sitting in this House
are themselves quite unconsciously involved in activities which
endanger the lives of many more Britishers than a few revolutionaries in
the Punjab can ever do. I am drawing attention to the entire industrial
activity which is being carried on in India...
“The noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State had occasion once or
twice to tell us that the Trade Union Act is under consideration, that it is
coming some day... but in the meantime I ask the Committee to give
serious consideration to this close relationship of the ordinary daily lives
of the working class people of Great Britain and the working class
people of India...
“I will give you one example. We have recently heard a good deal in this
House of trouble in Dundee. This House has tried to find many
solutions and to appoint an arbitration board to find out how the life
standard of the people of Dundee can be maintained so that their
women and children can at least have daily food, if nothing else, and
that they can somehow or other manage to have a decent house in which
to live.
“This does not apply only to the workers of Dundee. It applies similarly
to textile workers, to seamen, and colliers, and iron and steel workers,
and people in the engineering trades. What is the position? In Bengal
our British financial friends have raised 74 jute mills. They are quite
248
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
welcome to do so. The Bengalis have a right to see these jute mills
erected in their midst, and the financier has a perfect right to go
anywhere and direct any factory, if the people are simple enough to
allow him to do so, but the real position is this.
“Only about 4 weeks ago, I minutely worked out the figures, taking the
published reports of 41 concerns in this jute industry, every one of
which is controlled by British firms... I have found that on a capital
investment of £6,140,000 they earned, in the 4 years 1918-21,
£22,900,000 as dividends and that those 41 jute mills had, besides their
profits, set aside £19,000,000 as reserves.
“The standard of wages in these jute mills never reached 5 shillings a
week in the spinning department and never reached 10 shillings in the
weaving department, and taking the Bengali output at only 1/3 (in
reality it is 2/5) of that of the Scottish worker, the disparity of the wages
is evident.
“I can quite realise that this great jute industry may have increased the
wealth of a few Scottish families... but does it not appear to members on
the other side of the House that the position above means starvation for
thousands of workers in Dundee and also for the workers of Bengal? Out
of their low wages, the people in Bengal cannot have education, medical
assistance or proper housing. The same with regard to the colliers...”
Here the Chairman intervened, saying, “The hon member must connect this
with the government of India. I do not know whether he suggests that the
Secretary of State for India can reform the conditions of which he speaks.”
Saklatvala replied with some heat:
“I mean that the government of India, having granted concessions to
merchants, protecting them with their Armies and Navies, at the same
time have failed to introduce Trade Union legislation and trade union
activities and the union standards, and so are responsible for this
condition I will give you a more direct example. Take, for instance, the
iron and steel industries here.
“The government were bound, with regard to the giving of Indian
orders, not to place orders for iron and steel materials where trade
union wages were not paid. That condition automatically gets altered
when the government of India puts orders with firms who pay one tenth
249
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
or one twentieth of the wages that are trade union wages in this country.
There is another direct responsibility upon the government of India. In
India, the largest employer of labour, the biggest capitalist, is the
government of India, and they themselves started miserably low wages.
, Wx. 6AKLATVAT.A (Bottom*. N., Lob.)
Mid be bold tb* flovornmeot ct IndU rrtrpoc-
'ilblo to* tha long hours *od low wages of
irxlun worker* in mtnra and fart orica — 4 con-
dition of aJTair* which ptoduax] illiteracy nod
lnaamtary Kenning In Jr.dU. nod, by ntuu
of »uch "blackleg" cucipwtiticn, uncmplny
.ineot and itorraUon in tba country- The
C.<jvennn*ot. ta tba largest employe* of labour
'and tho btggmt eap;taJist tn Indio, had act
tbe bad example o! paying low wage*. Tlw
people hod to work under a Wrotera todiw-
truj ayatam and live under E attorn rondi-
Uon» thot were throe thousand yearn old. Ho
railed for a Co mulatto* of inquiry into the ute
of tba worker* of India. In regard to the
“It tax. be corteodod that tho fall in coc-
•uaplion owing to the rise In price was leading
to tho spread of leprogy. On remote tea-
shores tfccrw wvt* mh^nnen m)hi, knowtnt
"OttAW about tba ult tax lagMUtiou or
tit* Viceroy, stooped their fish fa the *,»
water to a«Jt them and then tpread them
to dry on tba scads. and. to their coutmu-
they ware fined lot smuggling rait with-
out pcyla* tbe duty. (Laughter.) Than, was
a disturbaiira in tho House recently on
account of the infant mortality in KcnUsnd.
Tim average rate of Infant mortality In British
India wn* *06 pe* thousand, a* compared
with MBety-oo* in U10 United Kingdom.
Clipping: The Times, 6th July 1923
“They set a bad example, they have maintained it, and have carried on
the whole system as a practice. I ask the government of India to realise
that, even if it does not matter to them, it does matter to thousands of
working class people in this country that the standard of wages be not
unequal, and I think it is most necessary and most important, in justice
to the Indian investors, as well as to the British working classes, that a
Committee of Investigation should be first appointed to find out the
disparity of wages...
“There is another serious consideration. The government of India was
asked only last March by the people of India, at least for the sake of
humanity and morality, to stop, in the Mining Act, 50,000 women with
their infants going into the pits every day to work. The government of
India has got another direct responsibility in the matter...
“Here are the figures from the government of India’s statistics of infant
mortality... In the northern Provinces, 216; Bengal, 185; Madras, 194;
Punjab, 248; Bombay, 217; The Central Provinces, 227; Burma, 220; the
whole average of British India being 206, compared with 97 in Scotland,
and 91 for the United Kingdom. [These figures are per 1000 live
250
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
births).] You cannot attribute it to climatic conditions...
“There is a private and confidential report, which was published for
private circulation only by Capt. E.D. Richards of the Calcutta
Improvement Trust, in which it is stated that in certain wards the
deaths of children up to 12 months old... from 1916-1919, were never
less than 575, and reached as high as 680 [per 1000].
“These are not things which a responsible government can really pass
over with the remark, ‘Well, these are Indian conditions...’ The people
must have either an Eastern or a Western life, an agricultural peasant
life or an industrial life; we cannot compel human beings to do work of
different conditions, to live as they would live upon farms, where very
little nervous or physical strain is required in their daily life.
“This is the position, and I ask the noble Lord to set aside all humbug
about liberal reform. It is all cant— there is no soul in these reforms
either for the people of India or Britain; it is only political tactics, to
spread salt on the tails of one or two Indian politicians.— The real
reforms are these. Let us have a Committee of Investigation to find out
how the working classes in India are living, and how the conditions are
responsible for want of education, want of sanitation and human
dignity, and also responsible for starvation and unemployment in this
country by the blacklegging of labour for large contracts.
“The other topic discussed was the Salt Tax. I remember a number of
pleas put forward by the noble Lord. Of course, he was not responsible;
he was telling us what the Viceroy told him. If we were to believe his
whole series of pleas, and that it does not matter whether you double or
treble the Salt Tax in India, then we have got to disbelieve a dozen
British statesmen and Viceroys who have said horrible things about the
cruelties of imposing the Salt Tax. I believe the noble Lord [Curzon] who
now presides over the destinies of the Foreign Office, when he played
the Super-Viceroy of India, considered himself very happy that he found
it possible to reduce that Salt Tax, and laid it down that it should be the
marking-stone for the future of British Policy to remove the Salt Tax as
hastily as possible.
“Salt is not in the nature of raspberries and cream— No human being
would take more salt than is necessary, and the noble Lord has got in his
251
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
own official record substantial statistics, worked out for over 50 years,
to show that whenever the Salt Tax was high, the consumption of salt
per head went down low.
“You do not want us to believe that when salt is cheap people eat
handfuls of it. Perhaps it is never cheap enough to enable people to have
a sufficient quantity at any time, but when cheap they take as near the
necessary quantity as possible, and when it becomes costly they have to
abstain from it. That is the only conclusion and I think the noble Lord
must have in his archives a report from one of the Commissioners of
Bombay... in which he, after due investigation, found that when the
consumption of salt is curtailed it spread the horrible scourge of leprosy
in those districts...
“I read a telegram in the Daily Herald that there is another conflict in
Bengal already. In putting additional taxation on salt, the government of
Bengal find it necessary to tighten the inspection against smuggling...
but fishermen, and ignorant villagers who do not know what is the Salt
Tax or what is legislation, or what is the Viceroy, go round the coast line,
and on the sea board perhaps cure their fish by means of salt water.
“That is a contravention of the Salt Tax; they are smugglers and are
punished. All along the sea board you have got thousands of inspectors
who bully the poor villagers and make their lives miserable. People
living on the sea shore often innocently get salt water and boil a few
mangolds, and they are charged immediately with having smuggled salt
without paying duty on it...
“You created an innocent Legislative Assembly, and you want this
House, by confirming the erratic action of the Viceroy, to tell the people
of India that all the members of the Legislative Assembly are brainless
chaps who know nothing about the people and know nothing about salt,
and that we here are the clever people who know everything about
everything. That is the message which you want to send forth. You want
to say to the Legislative Assembly, ‘It is not your job to know whether
poor people are able to buy salt or not; we know much better here in
Westminster.
“It is not for you to know whether the Salt Tax is good for you or bad for
you. You represent your people, but that is nothing. When we take it in
252
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
our heads to ride rough shod over you, we shall do it, because we know
everything under the sun, and you people do not know anything about
your own country.’ What is behind it all? The hon member for Derby
(Mr C.Roberts) told us that the Indian extremists, of whom I am proud
to be one, and the Conservative die-hards are sometimes akin. It may be
so, because we both like to look at facts as facts, and do not wrap them
up in diplomatic language...
“The action of the Viceroy in going over the heads of the people... is
wrong in principle, and... it is a principle with which the House of
Commons... should never associate itself, any more than with the idea
that the dictation of the Crown is always superior to the wishes and
intelligence of the people. Yet we are going to do this. Why?
“I hope that members of the Committee will not misunderstand me. I
have no bitterness in my heart. I wish to see life as it stands... I agree
with every member on this side of the House, that if it were possible to
let the Viceroy obey the people of India, it should be done, but I doubt
whether it is ever possible for any one country to dominate another
country and to send out a Viceroy and to say: ‘Go there and obey the
people of that country.’
“Such a thing is impossible. I do not believe in political phraseology
which is used for the sake of convenience— Dominion Home Rule, and
this and that. It may all look very well on paper. How can you expect a
self-respecting community to take charge of its country’s purse and
affairs and to say, ‘I will preserve all this, and manage all this, for the
benefit of the people of Britain in the first instance, and for the benefit
of the people of India in the second instance, if possible.’ Such a thing is
unnatural and not to be expected...
“There is one solution and only one solution, for the future. Why not
look at it like bold and brave people, who are conscious of the future?
There are many results in our present life and constitution and
civilisation to be ashamed of...
“Not politicians should count, but humanity. If you once start a scheme
by which the workers and peasants of India enjoy the same standard of
life as the workers and peasants of Europe and of America, you will have
abolished every need for sending out a Viceroy either with a mandate to
253
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
obey the people of India or with a mandate to obey the people of Britain
against the interests of the people of India.
“You are on the horns of a dilemma. When the day has come that the
peasants and the working classes have established a uniform standard
of life and political rights throughout the civilised world, the working-
class international organisations will arrange our international life.”
Thus Saklatvala combined his pleas for Indian freedom with a proclamation of
his own unshakeable conviction that international communism was the only
answer to the exploitation of man by man. He was performing a double duty;
and at the same time, he was expressing views which he personally,
passionately, believed in. It was his last major speech in the House before the
long summer recess.
Even though he was hardly ever absent from debates while the House was in
session, Saklatvala continued to travel up and down the country at weekends,
holding meetings and addressing large and enthusiastic crowds. He took part
in demonstrations and mass meetings in Trafalgar Square, he held regular
monthly assemblies in Battersea where he reported on the events in
Parliament to his constituents; he visited universities and spoke to students,
particularly to Indian students, clearly with the intention of passing on the
message of communism to them; he hoped that they would actively engage in
the cause when they finally returned home and form a strong Communist
Party there to fight for India’s freedom, and, more specifically, for freedom
from exploitation of the working and peasant class from whatever quarter
such exploitation might come, whether from British or from Indian capitalism.
For Saklatvala, national freedom was not enough, he demanded freedom for
the workers from oppression from any masters, be they British or Indian; he
foresaw that they would need protection against exploitation even under
Indian rule, so long as an Indian government remained a capitalist one. When
one looks at the poverty persisting among the masses in India today, more
than 40 years after independence, one must concede that he perhaps had a
point.
254
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
JUTE CRiSISjg?f fre«
I’ll* >U *«tl ill ,4w|l|(T tin •mf Mi 'HI Vliriifli
H Ml IttiUii imfwU J«* M • Mn»F(^ mi lb«i «*<l w^hmw
» •**•»*!». arttW W «W •*•*» upriii#^ toll T*+Jb t\mm m «
THE ONLY REMEDY IS:
JtJI
I i.i m \S
H mrih Ham
1 \fi l Vi
ft \rtftMir
ft Kdiivv
IWI4M |M,eV
Uu Aoo 00,000
pur IVkiui Duff fc ( «
rllnM 1 * 4*00
A ca r«-y
IVdouiDJIiU.
Mo.ooc
ft
UO OOQ 100*00
i;i,»v Mil
ft Virtnn*
IWmi IKU * c’uu Led
119.000 l>vjOM
|l| 606
£*,141*09 1 \
III* ITU 1
ft V1J IlM S««
, y
41 Mi :• i<
loMl flvvwWf*
«*• *lt ifc* J*r,t MdU i<Im 74; mi
L £«t \ 000 lair W <-jmrd
Imia. bni boii toh
I * )i|)| fcuaiuli
r £ 1 . 400 , 300 . aa4. anurdimf 1
9 pit * J iftC*. KMtl d
Clipping: Pamphlet from the Workers’ Welfare League of India
Not all his meetings were without dramatic incident. The Oxford Times
reported on June 1st 1923, under a headline ‘Mr Saklatvala MP at the Town
Hall— Alleged Kidnapping Plot’.
“Mr Saklatvala, the Indian socialist MP, addressed a public meeting in
255
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
the Town Hall on Friday evening under the auspices of the City Labour
Party... In declaring the meeting closed, the Chairman asked that a
number of friends should stay behind as... there was a ‘rag’ on foot and
Mr Saklatvala might be kidnapped in a red Rolls-Royce car. A number
of Indian students and members of Ruskin complied with the request
and Mr Saklatvala had a strong body-guard as he walked to Ruskin
College where he spent the night.”
Saklatvala’s impassioned speech and the questions that followed, were
reported in full.
[Editor’s note: ‘rag’ refers to a prank or stunt by students.]
This threat of kidnapping was not an isolated incident— such menaces were
made several times, but there was always a willing contingent of strong men to
protect him and sometimes he was whisked away through the back doors of
halls down little side-streets, sometimes on the pillion of a motorbike. I do not
think that either of my parents felt at all alarmed by these bullying tactics. My
mother was even less impressed than Father, finding such histrionic behaviour
too silly to be taken seriously— she treated threats very much as she treated
squabbles between the boys at home, and remained her usual placid and
unruffled self. And we all lived in the shelter of her calm and were
consequently blissfully untouched by all the dramas.
Saklatvala was a tireless propagandist in the Communist cause. He was
seldom home and when he was, he was almost always entertaining political
friends, Indian journalists, doctors, businessmen. Our house was always full of
strangers (well, strangers to us, that is; all, of course, well known to Father).
They were entertained to breakfast, lunch, tea, supper. We all took it for
granted that we sat quietly by while political discussions went on around us.
When he was at home at weekends, his old friend Kaikoo Mehta was a
frequent and welcome visitor; he brought jollity and light-hearted chatter,
social, frivolous, non-political— we were all happy to see him. He would take us
on to Hampstead Heath and play cricket and tennis with us and generally
entertain us.
Another frequent and welcome visitor was Dr Gotla, another old boyhood
friend of Father’s from his Bombay days. He had a very vivacious English wife
and three children, the youngest, Mickey, a boy of my age. We all enjoyed each
other’s company and visited each other’s homes. Mummy and Mrs Gotla
256
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
enjoyed days out together and their close friendship lasted through to old age
and ended only when Mrs Gotla died at about 80 years old. This personal
warmth and affection between the two families thrived in spite of acute
political and social differences.
Dr Gotla, along with many other socially successful Parsis, thought that
Father’s concerns for working people were something of a joke. I remember
once when I was in Dr Gotla’s car with all his family we passed one of the new
complexes of slum-clearance flats; Mickey, the young son, said incredulously,
“Fancy building flats with balconies for poor people!” But I had learned at a
very young age to keep outrage and indignation to myself until I reached the
private haven of home, when I could explode to Mother and liberate my
frustrations. Love and friendship had to transcend such differences.
The house was not only open to outsiders and political allies, but we nearly
always had one of Mummy’s numerous relatives staying with us, Grandma or
one of the sisters with their children. So, although Father was so often away,
we were never lonely. I loved all my mother’s sisters and all my cousins and
looked forward to their visits and dreaded their departures— and Father was
always more than happy to have them around— there was never any sign of
music-hall-joke, in-law tension; we were a happy tribe.
During the summer while the House was in recess, Saklatvala and Walton
Newbold were invited to Moscow to a private meeting with members of the
Communist International. It was to be Father’s first visit, and he took my
mother with him. When I say he was invited, it is probably an understatement
—I imagine it was more an order than an invitation. The same went for
Father’s invitation to Mother to accompany him— I don’t think she was given
any choice. Father sent her off early in the summer to Dymchurch to look for
cheap accommodation for the family. Sally’s sister Annie was to be asked to
come to Dymchurch with her daughter, my close and much-loved cousin Lily.
Annie was to look after all of us while both our parents were in Soviet Russia;
they were to visit the Ruhr on the way back, for Father to see for himself the
sorry plight of the German people.
It is likely that the two communists who were members of Parliament were to
discuss with members of the Communist International exactly what their role
in the British Parliament should be, what strategy was to be followed in
relation to the colonies and imperialism, and what other functions they might
257
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
be able to fulfil. It was Father’s first direct contact, though doubtless he had
had similar consultations at second-hand in London. It is certain that
Saklatvala did not merely receive orders and instructions, but contributed his
own ideas, particularly where Indian and imperialist problems were concerned
and his expertise on this subject was recognised and appreciated. At that time,
an Indian communist, M.N. Roy, was on the Executive Committee of the
Communist International; but he and Father were not always in agreement.
During this period, the Communists were anxious to unite with the Labour
Party (although the Labour Party were not willing to work with them and time
after time rejected their applications for affiliation). The Communist Party
sought political co-operation of all socialists to fight capitalism as a combined
force. The Labour Party seems always to have viewed acceptance of members
of the Communist Party, not as co-operation on the part of the Communists so
much as infiltration. There was always the contention that all communists
took their orders from Moscow and that, therefore, communists were anti-
British. I really do not agree that this was in fact the case. Just as members of
many nations come together at United Nations Assemblies for mutual
discussion, and as members of the EEC [now the EU] discuss economic and
political matters, so I think members of the Communist International
discussed policies and events.
One has to agree that the Moscow voice was probably stronger than most
other voices, but I am sure that Communists were able to put their views on
many subjects to the Communist International, even if they might not always
have been acted upon. But the idea that all Communists put love of Russia
before love of Britain is a fostered error; the difference between traditional
patriots and Communist patriots is that Communists accept that one must
love all British people, not just the ruling class; they recognise that working
class people are as British as the aristocracy (perhaps more purely so!) and to
work for the working class Britisher is just as patriotic as to work for the
master class Britisher.
Anyway, when Saklatvala went to Moscow on 27th August 1923, he went for
consultations and discussions, and not merely to receive orders. It was also
Father’s first opportunity to witness communism as then practiced in Soviet
Russia.
258
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Imperial and Foreign
News Items.
Stgaor IXiowoSni ho* returned to Bods.
Mr. SakfoiTsU, the Ltbour ILF, ba«
arriv«! in M cocow.
■
Clipping: The Times, 28th August 1923
There was at the time a big exhibition in Moscow of Russian handicrafts and,
of greater interest, of the progress being made in agriculture. He was more
favourably impressed than was my mother. Mother, who hated being parted
from her children more than anything, was appalled at the idea of creches
being used for children while their mothers went to work (they have become
an accepted part of British life now, of course, but then they were unheard of).
When she saw that workers’ families were housed in what had been
sumptuously furnished and beautifully appointed flats, and saw them with
enamel washing-up bowls on buhl escritoires, her sensibilities were offended;
whereas Father saw all this as a way of giving working people reasonably
comfortable homes to live in instead of the hovels to which they had been
relegated under Tsarist despotism.
My Band of Hope mother was scandalised by the drunkenness, while Father
chose not to notice it. Knowing that his wife was likely to be uninhibited in her
criticisms of the regime, he told her bluntly that it was he who had been to
observe conditions and that she had gone merely to keep him company, and
that therefore she should refrain from airing her views in public— it was his
views that were sought, not hers. While I have to deplore this muzzling of
female expression (especially from a man who publicly upheld the rights of
women!), I have to concede that the Communist International would not have
taken kindly to Mother’s views being broadcast.
For the rest of us, our parents’ travels gave us our first ever family sea-side
holiday. Our landlady was not over-generous. The curtains were torn and none
too clean; she had a little toddling boy who never wore trousers or knickers,
but was always clad in a tatty old jersey, its front and back pinned together
between his legs with a giant safety-pin as a concession to modest
respectability. The food was apparently awful (though at 4 years old I was too
young to notice)— one day when the meat was even tougher than usual, my
outspoken sister said Mrs Clayton should have used the meat for curtains and
stewed the curtains for lunch. The landlady was listening outside the door and
259
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
created a great hullabaloo; Aunty Annie was embarrassed but we all thought it
was great fun, and that Candy had scored a point, since her remark (which we
all thought so very witty!) had been overheard.
I was introduced to the lures of capitalism in the shape of a penny-dip in the
local sweet-shop; Lily and I came rushing home and I proclaimed excitedly, “I
gave him a little tiny white penny and he’s given me all these big brown ones
and our presents as well!” (An old-fashioned sixpence had yielded four
pennies and two goes in the penny dip). With all the excitement of the sea-
side, and having all the family and Auntie Annie and Lily together, our parents
were really not missed. And on their return we enjoyed having them to
ourselves without the intrusion of friends, either social or political; just for a
few days Father was just a Father and not a politician— and it was a most
joyful holiday for us all.
Mr. J. T. W. KentrtM. M.P., Owmmroiit
rr«i=W lor the NoUicrwtU Diikilot of
UlMfio*, *ml Mr. S. fuUnfvulA. M.P.. Latear
im<ir.K»r for Battonnv, urn t-;..- :Uuj; !rw dty*
n Oiiogor, and will procrei! to tl>» Ruhr.
Clipping: The Times, 10th September 1923
The parliamentary recess ended on Tuesday 13th November, when Stanley
Baldwin explained to the House that, after profound consideration on the
problem of unemployment, he felt he could not steer the country through the
winter without using “an instrument which I could not use having regard to
the pledge given a year ago by Mr Bonar Law”; he needed to abandon the
policy of free trade and to adopt a protectionist policy. Parliament was,
therefore, to be dissolved on Friday 16th November 1923. There was to be a
General Election, and Father’s first term as an MP was brought to an early
close.
260
CHAPTER 13
A Narrow Defeat
Narrow defeat in the General Election of 1923. The first
Labour government of Ramsey MacDonald. Labour Party
rejection of affiliation to the Communist Party.
Saklatvala had been unanimously selected as the Labour candidate for
Battersea North. In his Election Address he wrote:
“I enclose herewith the Labour Party’s Official Manifesto, which I pledge
to support, with the only criticism that that is the least that one can
demand under the present conditions of life all over the world, while our
moral instincts, which transcend political conveniences, require us to go
further. If re-elected, I shall, as usual, submit myself to you at least once
every month to receive your instructions and to give attention to your
wishes...”
mmJ •Ji.Hrid «.<• fca *v‘-J 1mm mm
)»«•/ mVIi mU UO mnJ/ •P*» Ml
*4 %n fad f • » • • fd mm Vi (1»»
Vi— •• *h.I lUU
Clipping: Saklatvala’s Election Address
But, once again, he proclaimed with pride his adherence to the Communist
Party, saying:
“...I must ask your permission to say a word about my undoubted
membership of the Communist Party, as for the last 12 months our
opponents have been assiduously working a stunt under the vague term
‘Bolshevism’.
“Last week Edwin Percival Power, age 20, a cabinet maker, of Chester
261
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Street, Bethnal Green, through depression from continued
unemployment, took poison and died in Epping Forest, faithfully
clutching his young sweetheart’s photograph. A letter found on the body
by the police read, ‘I have come out in the open to die— out in the
glorious air away from the paltry deceit and strife of the world. It will be
a merciful release to die to ease the aching of my heart. May the Lord
have mercy on my soul and receive me into the kingdom of Heaven.’
“Leibknecht, Rosa Luxembourg, Eisner, Vorovsky were assassinated by
Fascist hands, but Edwin Power and his like are daily driven to despair
and death by masters who shut their factories, and where Society has no
right to take charge of them and work them.
“The new ILP and Labour Party International, as well as the Moscow
International, are described as anti-British, alien influences. When
militarist jingoes of all nations work together it is called, ‘Council of
War’, when intriguing politicians of all nations conspire together, they
are called ‘Council of Ambassadors’; when armed financiers meet
together to rob unarmed nations they are called the ‘League of Nations’;
when workers of all nations meet and work together, they are called
‘Alien Bolsheviks’.
“We must have uniform standards for the workers all over Europe and
Asia, and we can neither leave the Communists or the right wing trade
unionists or the Social Democrats to fight their own battles singly.
Before the final and universal success we shall all have to get a united
plan of action.”
On this same theme, earlier in the address he asked, “How many Liberal and
Conservative investors are every day using British wealth, originally produced
by British workers, in countries abroad, where they can find human beings to
work at cheaper rates and in a more docile manner? With British money and
with British foremen that they took abroad, why did they not take British
standards of wages also?...”
Of the war debt he wrote, “Liberals boast that free trade financed the last war.
This is untrue. The war was not carried on from accumulated profit made in
the past. Instead, to finance the war, the workers of this country are called
upon to pay £1,000,000 per day indefinitely.” (He was alluding to the interest
payable on the national war debt.)
262
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
The Evening Standard on 26th November 1923, announcing Saklatvala’s
candidature wrote:
“In North Battersea Mr Saklatvala is, in many respects, without a
parallel. He is an Indian by birth, and his antecedents neither suggest
nor explain his revolutionary doctrines. His brother, for instance, is
President of the Mill Owners Association in Bombay.”
It was, perhaps, due to such references and frequent accusations in the
Commons about his being part of a successful, capitalist family, that led him to
include this in his election address: “I would here warn you against the
attempt to misrepresent my position in the Labour world, by identifying me
with others of a like name connected with finance in India and in America.”
One of the most interesting events in Saklatvala’s campaign, in the light of
present-day problems of racism in our multi-racial society, was a clear
indication at a public meeting that such general antipathy towards Indians did
not exist at that time. The Liberal candidate, Mr Hogbin, accused ‘supporters
of Saklatvala’ of rowdyism and threats against his person; he claimed that the
intimidations were such as to make it too dangerous for him to address any
more meetings in person and he therefore appointed his agent, Captain A.P.
Godfrey, to speak for him. (If such threats had in fact been made, and there
was never any evidence or proof that they had been, it might seem somewhat
cowardly to expose his agent to the abuse rather than face it himself).
The right-wing press upheld the view that supporters of Saklatvala were guilty;
the left-wing press, notably the Daily Herald, thought the whole thing was a
stunt to try to discredit Saklatvala.
263
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
THE “REDS” OF
BATTERSEA.
UNIONIST-LIBERAL
COALITION.
CONTESTS IN KENT
AND BUCKS.
(FROM Ol k unx'IAt CXIlLlUCSrOKOCKT.}
BaltetK* is one at th* f*w “ Fteil '• <vti: re-
in the London ares, and the North Division
returned to Parliament lost year an itidiim
Cotnrrumist, who Etood aj the Labour Party
candi date.
Mr. Saktatraln. ip the Labour nominee.
Writing in the ^Ynriccrs’ IFstAiy a few months
a**i, while still oeeuiiyinij a seat in the Hone
of Common*, he said: " The British Ertipirt
us mod: up of (uc aristocratic and cumnir; dirty
doss of Orvat Britain, who will assail anyone's
country any time." His pernkrinns influence
has crept like duek-oeed nmaryr a larg* portion
of the electors, whose discontent has hoon
created or f«I by unemployment, and ll)«re is
urtp-ct reason in the public intercut why it
should be checked. It must be said that the
other perilous of th* constituency have been
laxjotly to blame loc the present situation. While
the revolutionary dement has been active:
amone the etcetera and at the pall, thousands
of others lu-.ve been apathetic and have ab-
atainrd from voting- -
Both the Liberal rnd L’nianist Parties appear
at last U> be awoke to the necessity of Aiing
soenethinc. and ore mnkinp a determined eltort
j lo secure the constitution*! representation of
rite epnstitutaiey. At the election last v«ar M».
S.tltJaival* received 11.311 voU*. ucaiict
«*st for the Xatiomt Liberal and Liberal eaiaii*
dntc*. Mr. H. C. ITocbin. the Xntionnl Liberal
nominee In that cke-tian. hop now been
nominated *r the United Lilieial candidate, and
no the local Unionist leaders have issued an
I a )*I* - ol to their followers to support him, on tlie
j £ round that he is the constitutional candidate.
I the teak of the combined parties outfit not to
j be an impossible one.
In the 1322 election ns many os 17.000
I electors abstained from voting. approiehirn; *
! half of the entire electorate, This tv as, no doubt.
1 due very larcely to the differences in the Liberal
Party, which hod prrvkousl.r for many yeuis
, Secured the representation ol the district. The
P*Hv *kw hope 1 a pnll their full strength, aihJ
, abould v.-m if Lifer-tl apotiiy does not cot ne to
the aid of tlieir apponont*
Mr. H ok b*ii lias put the qneetkui of the Con-
stxtntkin in jtlic iMvfavtnt c»f liis addw, adi)
s*y» that the threat ireuc which the electors
lime to decide is “ whether you will have Con-
Mi lot Junn.1 Government and maintain law mid
order, or submit to the forces r«f revolution and
j disorder.”
Ifar tne rest. I*f pratniwm to “support «urh
I meapims as will, untu sueli time as Europe is again
j >/»■ jimeetu! ttu.Hua terms. and nictour** have
| -nmu steblltanS, lirirw immediate nl'mf to neem-
I I'loyment." H« rabsures tlie Ubrtal racial policy
w ort'OKJ to pivicr Mr- IViJilivh: “a blank cheque "
on tlie question of j.rot. rii.n, aid ike
j lxfUt ihr.t free trade ip it. hmrf. means oS kuiping
| ill lie vulmm><)itics of U£» nit tlie lowest level,
j Mr. _SakTa{ vela’s eleetinn address is a very
i mild document, bnt his speeches are of the
I wild Coititnujiistic type,
Clipping: The Times, 29th November 1923
Saklatvala himself issued a leaflet which he distributed to audiences at his
meetings; he also sent an ample supply of the leaflets to Mr Hogbin to give out
at his meetings also. It was addressed to ‘Battersea Comrades’ and stated:
“Making a noise or causing a disturbance at Meetings of our Political
Opponents is not in keeping with the traditions of Battersea where the
people are ever ready to listen to all kinds of opinion.
“Many Elections have been won by Candidates in the past as a result of
unfair treatment given to them at Public Meetings. I strongly advocate a
fair hearing for and a calm discussion with everybody who wishes to
express or explain his opinions. I strongly urge upon all to preserve the
fair name of Battersea, and to be calm and well-conducted at all
Meetings.
264
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
“Do not let me appeal to you in vain. Saklatvala”
The Daily Herald reported that Saklatvala thought it wrong to hold, at such
times as these, Party meetings to be addressed by representatives of one side
only: “He invites Conservatives and Liberals to attend his meetings and
address his rallies. He asks for similar privileges in return.” As a result of this
policy, Saklatvala and Captain Godfrey, (Mr Hogbin’s Election Agent) were
addressing a joint meeting in Battersea, immediately after the distribution of
Saklatvala’s exhortation to the voters to give everyone a fair hearing. Captain
Godfrey first referred to the “splendid sportsmanship” shown by Saklatvala.
Election Nows Items
Ubt’nli mod Cot>*-rTaliv«i In the UuuSdj
WvWbo an> codbtnia* to <k!eot tb* Socialite.
Labour candidate. Mr. A. J. Bcnaatt.
Ur. RiU.it vnl» hi reported to bare aBrnxt
tlia bmpitallty at )u» platJorm to (liber (la
Liberal at Conrervithc candidate, Miuricf
tbrm a (nir bearioc.
Clipping: The Times, 4th December 1923
“But,” he added, “I have to confess to having an instinctive preference for an
Englishman.” Whereupon there was general uproar, the audience rose to their
feet, “Withdraw!” “Shame!” “You’re asking for it!” and “What about Lady
Astor?” (Who was a non-coloured but most colourful foreigner by birth) were
some of the remarks distinguishable through the din, which continued until
Mr Saklatvala himself intervened. In answer to the general clamour Captain
Godfrey assured everyone that he had intended no offence and that if his
remark had caused offence, he withdrew it. How wonderful it would be were
such strong and wholesome reactions to be found in an audience today.
Early in the evening on Polling Day, 6th December, before the results had
been declared, Saklatvala attended a big rally of the ILP in the Queen’s Hall,
where he received a resounding ovation.
But his good fortune was not to hold and he lost the seat by 186 votes. Hogbin
polled 12,527 and Saklatvala received 12,341 votes. It had been a hard-fought
campaign and the gap was narrow, but the result was a bitter blow to
Saklatvala and the Communist Party. Their were rowdy scenes at Battersea
Town Hall when the four candidates (for South and North Battersea) appeared
on the balcony of the Town Hall and, later, in the Council Chamber. The Daily
Telegraph reported that:
“Mr Saklatvala, attempting to pour oil on the troubled waters,
265
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
thereupon appealed to all his friends present to understand that in a
parliamentary Election someone had to win and someone else had to
lose. Mr Hogbin had his disappointment 12 months ago. He (Mr
Saklatvala) did not hide the fact that when, after hard work and great
stress, a man lost an election, he must feel disappointed, but that need
not make him bitter.”
After the election, Ramsey MacDonald was to form the first Labour
government. Reginald Bishop, a close associate and Father’s secretary, has
been quoted as saying that Saklatvala came under great pressure from the
parliamentary Labour Party at that time. They not only sought his advice on
India but apparently proffered all sorts of allurements with promises of high
office if he would renounce his membership of the Communist Party and
wholeheartedly and unreservedly toe the Labour Party line.
LABOUR ELECTION
TACTICS.
ROWDYISM IN SOUTH
LONDON.
LIBERAL AND UNIONIST
VICTIMS.
(fltOM oun SPECIAL CO&HCSPOXDE3CT.)
The (okm of disorder are conducting
wh»i appear* to bo aa orrgamwKl syetem
of disturbance in some of the South
London Divisions. The methods adopted
in constituaneine wide apart ore similar,
end, particularly in North Battersea, the
main issue before the country is almost
lost in a struggle to secure Constitutional
representation.
Whoa writing last week about the
conditions in North Battersea, I pointed
out that Mr. Hogbin, tho Liberal can-
didate, hod told tho electors tint l)»
great question they had to decide was
whether they would have Constitutional
government and maintain law and order,
or submit to the forces of revolution and
j disorder. Mr. Hogbin is receiving the
full support of both tbe Constitutional
parties m the division. He has shown
great courage in his fight against the
revolutionary element, led by Mr. Xoii&t-
vala. the Indian Communist, with the
1 result that be has been seriously I
j threatened by desperate gangs , and has I
been compelled to receive pouoo proteo*
1 tion. |
All the Liberal meetings in tho division
have been cac celled, and it will probably
be impossible for Mr. Hogbin to conduct
his canvass any further. The fear is tliat
many of tho electors may be prevented
| by terror from voting, bet it is clear that
Liberals and Unionists have tlie power
to reject the so-called Labour candidate
if they ran only be got to poll something
Uke tlueir full strength. It is this fact, no
doubt, that has induced the “ Beds ”
to spread terror in the division.
In other constituencies the disorder
has been aimed at Unionist candidates.
Dome Helen Gwyr.r.n Vaughan is running
Mr. Ammon, the Labour nominee, who
was returned last year by the narrow
majority of 254, very close in North
Camberwell, and has an excellent chance
o! securing tbe cent if aha has fair play.
This she is not getting. Communist
hands, composed mainly of young men.
disturb her meetings, but she has tackled
her task fwirleealy and with great spirit.
Clipping: The Times, 5th December 1923
266
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Personally I do not think that any such inducements would be considered by
Father to be a temptation or a pressure. He was being promised gifts for which
he had no use and which did not tempt him at all. It was like offering a
succulent steak to a vegetarian— they offered merely what he did not want. He
wanted a free India and a communist India, and nothing short of that would
satisfy him. He also wanted international communism and was determined to
remain politically and morally free to preach his personal, communist gospel.
Like most left-wing socialists, Father became totally disillusioned by Ramsay
MacDonald. It was said that on one occasion, listening to one of MacDonald’s
orations, Jimmy Maxton was actually crying and was heard to mutter,
“Bastard!” under his breath. Beatrice Webb said of him that “He was a good
substitute for a Leader.” In fairness to MacDonald, it has to be remembered
that he formed a government without having a clear majority in the House.
Asquith said, “If a Labour government is ever to be tried in this country it
could hardly be tried under safer conditions.”
In an issue of The Labour Monthly in 1924, Lenin described MacDonald as
using “smooth, melodious, banal, and socialist-seeming phraseology which
serves in all developed capitalist countries to camouflage the policy of the
bourgeoisie inside the Labour Movement.”
r"TKT other changes have tnkea place I
in divisions which were represented by
Liberals and Labour members. It wiil
bo remembered that in North Battersea,
the Unionists decided to support Mr.
Hogbio, the Liberal candidate, in order
to secure the defeat of Mr. Sa List vela, the
Indian Communist, who sat os a Labour
member in tbe lost Parliament. Mr.
H ogbin ha* item returned n ith • majority
ot 186. Labour has gained from
Clipping: The Times, 8th December 1923
But a stronger leader and a more wholeheartedly dedicated socialist could
certainly have achieved more. And Labour Policy on the Colonies was little
better, in Saklatvala’s view, than the Tory one. The Labour Secretary of State
for India, Lord Olivier, was a Fabian and Saklatvala was totally out of
sympathy with him. Saklatvala made this clear when he addressed the 24th
Annual Conference of the Labour Party. In the report of that Conference it is
stated that Mr Saklatvala complained:
“That no mention was made in the Report of the replies which were
given to the deputations to the India Office. The Indian Labour
267
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Problem, he submitted, had a great bearing on the progress as well as
the safety of the Trade Union Movement in this country. In this respect
the splendid case that was made out by the deputation was quoted, but
there was not one single word as to what the India Office had to say in
return. Very important suggestions were made to the India Office and it
was pointed out that miners in India were working at very low wages,
and that a very large number of women were employed underground.
And yet they were told from time to time that Welsh coal was no longer
in demand because foreign coal could be sold in certain markets at to
shillings a ton cheaper.
“Throughout the whole industrial movement in India cruel, inhuman
treatment was meted out to Indian workers. The deputation demanded
from the Labour government that they should appoint a Commission to
go out to India to examine the whole affair, but they were not told in this
report what had happened or what the answer would be. There was no
mention made in the report of the 2 boys shot down during the mills
strike, nor of the trial and imprisonment of many people. The whole
thing was a conspiracy against the workers both of India and of Great
Britain.”
As an Indian communist working politically in England, which was the centre
of the British Empire and the seat of its government, Saklatvala had an
important and personal role to play in the Communist Party of Great Britain
and in the Communist International. He certainly helped to create and foster a
Communist Party in India. This work continued even when he ceased to be a
member of Parliament; indeed, if anything, his propaganda and meetings up
and down the country were carried on more vigorously than ever when he was
freed from his duties as a member of the House of Commons.
268
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
VISCOUNT CURZON ON SOCIALISM.
A r»vn*rkab** imwiitig ««» held at the
J Bfittl'Miu Tmwu Hall uu Friday, toh*n n»pw-
smtatlvcs of all shade* of public thought were
among those on the platform. They tecdudesl
Tasoount Canon. ConsrrvatiTc M.P. for South
Battersea. Mr. H. C. Hog bln. Idhensl M.P. for ,
Xorth Battersea, and Mr. F. SokUtwIa. Thai
subject diwnitard was " The Socialist Govern-
ment in Theory and Practice. ” Viacom
Cp**on, referring to Use programmesi of tha I
Conservative and Labour Parties, inquire*] if
Use Labour Party could point to a single
mnatnuotlve item that they hail introduced
since they came into power which had put a
aingte man or woman into work. Till! McKenna
<1 utwo were to be don* away with. He quoted
the words of the member of the Labour Party
who in lh* Houaa of Commons Inquired,
“ If we remove three dutiee, where ate tbs
man to go In order to get employment ? "
Thare aim aoana slight tni*cru|iii(>ci at this,
; and ooc man called out, " The worthouss."
** The Socialist Party," said l,oed Curron, “ is
founded on misery and discontent. " H«
added that Ussy wanted to destroy iiiiliwtry
in order to notions It re M at a knock-out price.
Mr. Hoobux, who followed, pointed out that
not ooo word had been said about the capital
levy since the Socialist Government came Into
power. By this time the gentlemen who were
going to impose ths capital levy were 13,000
| a year men. Mr. Saklatvaia, who made the
filial speech, referred to tha McKenna duties,
ft foreigner* sent more motor-cars hero. h»
said, they would rail far more British goods
In return. The British nation did not live
by the motor trwdu sloes. Mr. Mak Patiala
ufckde an attack on the bousing syttem.
Clipping: The Times, 19th May 1924
Nor did he neglect the constituents of Battersea. There is a report in the
Tooting and Balham Times of “an extraordinary meeting, unique in Party
politics” held in Battersea Town Hall and addressed by Battersea’s two MPs,
Viscount Curzon and Mr Hogbin and also by the official Labour parliamentary
candidate, Mr Saklatvala. The hall was packed by people of all shades of
political opinion and there was applause when Saklatvala said that if he had
his way, all political meetings should be organised on a multi-party basis.
Saklatvala made a blistering attack on Battersea’s housing. He said Viscount
Curzon had accompanied him on a tour of houses that “were disgraceful and
diabolical. Houses where there were 5, 6 and 7 lodgers in one room. The slates
had gone from the roofs, the windows were without panes of glass and the
walls were filthy and full of millions of microbes.” Earlier in his speech he
claimed that he was in England “to expel from them their national hypocrisy
and to make them real Christians.”
“You go to Church,” he said, “and the Church preaches morality and asks you
to lead healthy lives, and observe in private life morality and decorum between
the sexes. Yet under your capitalist system you allow father, mother and three
269
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
or four children to live in one room.” He declared that they studied medical
science, economics, they gave mind-training and produced articles to improve
the health and comfort of their people, and yet they permitted 90% of the
population to live in insanitary houses. In Battersea, he said, there were
houses that were a disgrace to any city.
COUMFMST DEMOXSTIUTIO.V IX
TRAP ALGA R-SQUARE.
A Comm uniat dwron (Miration, to b«m
“ Anti-war was bold in Trafalgar-
square ymterdar afternoon. T be snmknrs
torliaW Mr. SalM.tv.\U and M. Hmrict. a
Communist nu-iabar of (h* French Cbambcr at
Pec utica. M. HrxaiRT, who spoke hi French
and was JoudJjr chrwfd. said that the
promt*** of Mr. MacDonata meant nothing ■ ]
they were merely part of the capitalist game.
During tha meeting it waa discover*! that
there were three Kuasian fisbermeo is the
crowd. They were immedlatoly taken to the
plinth and worn V:-i dly ehcerrit. |_
Clipping: The Times, 28th July 1924
Saklatvala, as a delegate to the 24th annual Labour Party Conference held at
the Queens Hall, London, in October, 1924, wound up the perennial debate on
the affiliation to the Labour Party of the Communist Party, which was, of
course, once again rejected. Indeed, the gap between the two parties was
widening, although the Communists remained convinced that the Labour
Movement could only gain in strength if all left wing movements worked
together harmoniously against the united capitalist forces that were exploiting
workers all over the world. But although they claimed to be working for the
same aims, there was deep division as to the means used to achieve them.
Mr Frank Hodges MP, introduced the recommendations of the Executive,
which were: “That the application for affiliation from the Communist Party be
refused. And that no member of the Communist Party shall be eligible for
endorsement as a Labour Candidate for Parliament or any Local Authority.”
At the end of the debate, in which Harry Pollitt also took part in favour of
affiliation, Mr Saklatvala contended that:
“The Object in the Constitution of the Labour Party was also, in the
main, the object of the Communist Party. With regard to parliamentary
Democracy, it was a mistaken idea, he said, to say that the Communists
did not believe in the right of the people as expressed in Parliament, but
they refused to accept a sham democracy in the form of Parliament as it
is now constituted. It was so undemocratic that it compelled the Prime
Minister to keep a man like George Lansbury out of the Labour
270
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
government.
“As to the non-endorsement as Labour Candidates of members of the
Communist Party, this was, he said, a very wrong step. There were
members of the Labour Party who were also members of the National
Liberal Club and of the Reform Club; if members of the Communist
Party were to be debarred, so too should the members of these other
organisations. He had sat for eight months in the House of Commons
and he could honestly say that he had never received a single letter or
telegraphic introduction from Moscow.
“The Communist Party, he said, was recognised all over Europe as a
definitely working class organisation. Wise or unwise, stupid or
prudent, it was admitted to be a working class movement, and yet it was
proposed to put up a cast iron bar against it. He hoped the resolutions
would be defeated.”
In this, he was, of course, to be disappointed as all three resolutions, excluding
communists from membership of the party, from endorsement by the Labour
Party as parliamentary candidates, and denying the affiliation of the
Communist Party to the Labour Party, were all carried. In spite of these
resolutions, Saklatvala was to remain an active member of the Labour Party
until 1928.
Communism was then comparatively new to Britain, and was considered to be
an import from abroad and was, therefore, dubbed by those who feared it, as
‘unpatriotic’— though more than any other Party, perhaps, it stood for the
betterment of conditions for working men who were as much part of the
British nation as were the bankers, businessmen and aristocracy. It was,
perhaps, largely due to this accusation of disloyalty that the Labour Party
feared it might lose middle-class votes if it consorted openly with the
Communist Party. (We had, many centuries earlier, imported quite a few good
ideas from foreign parts, such as the wheel from Egypt, arithmetic from the
Arabs and Christianity from Jerusalem, and the basis of our legal system from
Rome, to name but a few. But these were imported before England had
become ‘top nation’. Now she was sitting on top of the world, perhaps she felt
it no longer appropriate to introduce innovations from abroad.)
This, I suppose, is the greatest weakness of the democratic voting system;
politicians, anxious from the best motives to achieve or gain power, all too
271
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
often prune their policies to court the voters rather than forming policies to
further their fundamental political and economic principles. After all, there
are still those who believe that a party has to trim its principles in order to woo
reluctant voters. Personally, I think it a most dangerous course to follow; for
such parties all too often lose their direction and miss their final destination.
And in the last analysis, who is going to vote for a party that doesn’t know
where it is heading? The Vicar of Bray is remembered only as a figure of fun
and certainly did not achieve much, other than to survive. True, he retained
his head, but there are few who believe it was worth keeping.
It is hard— indeed it is distressing — to imagine the steadfast adherence to
principle and the dogged spirit of optimism that prevailed among those early
socialist and communist leaders, now that we have to witness the dismantling
of our own welfare state and the disintegration of the communist governments
in eastern Europe. They were all so positive that communism would spread all
over the world ultimately and that, with it, would be achieved human
happiness.
For my part, I remain convinced that depression and sorrow are the natural
emotional state of mankind— after all, the first thing a human baby does is to
cry— and it is to cheer ourselves up that we divert ourselves with learning,
music, dance, theatre, games, drink, drugs and suicidal smoking, flirtations
and the pursuit of love, good food, travel, hard work... and thus most of us
manage for much of the time to hold our natural depression at bay. I do not
subscribe to the belief in original sin, only to the belief in original despair; and
despair is not an illness to be cured, but a natural condition which has to be
endured. One has only to look into the eyes of the inmates of refugee camps, to
realise that, stripped of human hope and the chance of activity and endeavour,
our inborn depression reasserts itself.
And despair crept into Father’s thinking sometimes for, in his latter years, he
apparently said once to my mother, “Well, Sehri, have I been a fool? Should I
have made money like the rest of them and given you and the children a
comfortable life, instead of spending my energies on politics?” This mood of
despondency passed, especially as my mother reassured him that she would
not have had it any other way. But he would not have been human if he had
never had moments of self-doubt and loss of hope.
But these moments were rare and, with his strength of purpose, he overcame
272
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
them; for the most part he fervently believed that communism, and with it
human happiness, would be achieved, that the poor and oppressed would be
rescued, that, in the spirit of the Magnificat, the mighty should be put down
from their seats, and those of low degree would be exalted; the hungry should
be filled with good things, and the rich would be sent empty away.
273
CHAPTER 14
Re-election and the Red Scare
The Zinoviev Letter. Parliamentary debate following the
assassination of Sir Lee Stack, 1924. Resignation from the
firm of Tata. Election victory, November 1924. The Tories
regain power.
Ramsay MacDonald’s Labour government was short-lived. He had been brave
and realistic enough to give formal recognition to the government in Russia
and had entered into a trade agreement with them. He was also negotiating a
loan to the USSR. The opposition viewed such activity with distaste and alarm.
But it was not any major political issue that brought the Labour government
down, instead it was an accusation against one Mr J.R. Campbell, acting-
editor of the communist journal Workers’ Weekly. The Director of Public
Prosecutions brought a case of sedition against him for publishing an article
calling on the armed forces not to intervene against strikers in any industrial
dispute, and not to fire on men who, after all, were their fellow- workers.
But the Attorney-General, Sir Patrick Hastings, deemed it wiser to withdraw
the indictment. To bring a case against Campbell and have it fail would be
worse than not bringing a suit at all. Campbell had sustained disabling wounds
as a soldier during the war, when he had been awarded a decoration for
exceptional gallantry, and he could well excite public sympathy on this
account. It was also feared that such a prosecution could be interpreted as
interference with the right of free speech. The Conservatives and Liberals in
the House seized on the opportunity and successfully moved a vote of censure,
and MacDonald was forced to ask for the dissolution of Parliament.
Whatever MacDonald’s faults might have been, there is no doubt that he had
endured a most exacting few months as Prime Minister and had suffered
harsh personal criticism from Tories, Liberals and his own back-benchers; he
had added to his responsibilities by conducting his own Foreign Affairs. He
faced the prospective General Election a tired, and personally very injured
man. Nor could the affairs of state be neglected; these had to be conducted
274
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
during the course of his travels between an arduous and demanding schedule
of public meetings. He was addressing twenty or more meetings every day in
different towns and was constantly travelling and on the move.
So it was that the scurrilous affair of the ‘Zinoviev Letter’ caught him
unawares; though the whole deception was so skilfully and cunningly
conducted that it is doubtful whether anyone in MacDonald’s position could
have overcome the consequences of it, no matter how alert and leisured they
might have been.
Just four days before Polling Day, on 25th October 1924, under melodramatic
headlines, the Daily Mail published what purported to be a letter from the
President of the Soviet Presidium in Moscow, Mr Zinoviev, addressed to Mr
MacManus, the Secretary of the Communist Party in Great Britain. The Mail
reported it as “Two dramatic documents just released by the Foreign Office— a
copy of a letter from Zinoviev to the British Communist Party and a protest
note issued by the Foreign Office to the Russian Charge d’Affaires in London.”
History leaves us in no doubt that the letter was a counterfeit; it was not until
the summer of 1927 that one Drujalovsky, a known forger, confessed to having
assisted in forging the Zinoviev Letter with a group of White Russian emigres
in Berlin; but whomsoever actually wielded the pen, there can be no question
of the fact that the contents of the letter were devised by someone with a
profound and intimate knowledge of British politics, and its author showed
consummate skill and political insight. What can never be established is how
much the Foreign Office and press barons actually believed it to be true, or
whether it was used, cynically, as probably one of the dirtiest of dirty political
tricks to discredit the socialist movement.
275
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Election Campaign
(Cuntlnntil),
HARD FIGHTING TX
BATTERSEA.
COMMUNIST ROWDYISM.
<iioi e ? iscial W53a«payucvT )
Xoulli 1 ](iUm>mi lu»l jvir tciiai an
TTTl p I C^l> h ii L iioCiirifl}' i:*a T|£ tr> * Iim IiuvvI
ideas nf ijur pi it Rtrkrjiiriii Ly tin.
Vp-Uk- rutrdbM rrt Jm C^immnrurt Pur^-.
/*Cwl c* L 111 c^uiuiil upjKMiLku .*! mrl.
strength Ika < m.iW in imiltM litm-
ISil luuni. Rid tlirrulcnrtl \vilh ficriuMl
V la 1 1 r. 04. Xr, ITugfetn, elm Tjhi»r.il anHi-
• lie. J U. ‘(ibsmkfe )tiii miu'.L^t, but
Lu tf nil lilH ejM< fnuii Mr, rf«VI*lrv«l:t, t>j»
C team u nisi, by 1S>1 vuliu 'Itmrv:
oa:: hr. 11:11* ilmilit Umt lln? <d
Ui rortiern uijp'cil L/ llm BAtUrj»s
'* Dwto" co ntn billed to hi# kina*!*, but
Ilia JM10CV Ml £u. M# Urn l>xmmiiiibi.Hi(
aafucTTjcd, apji»aw .to it*** b?e«i ur-
Af^nJy till* nwlc an» cp«u-ub
[r#^ry: in 'upper! of Ml. liowbill huJ
' “All lie be Atopped by tlm jkjIkm
; lm uprt*r wm io great, aiul a- ttec tit
tiilm*, THffdoc M whtCLj Mr. Hu*imi *0
iLi^mO lii». Aiipfcirmnc wm jpvttly f^lrr-
n»[*f *ii rj ytmnij Ccnamuub/A who had
tr.jiiifc.rwd to r.!>tol»\ L Jriilxi-'.iu
Mi. rltyrixti hits ovjcn os. his eppanmt
Mt. •Sulluivilx, win hm b?:n odtplod by
11 k lire! CimurirVct Party, ***' will alvj
I fc*ava llm ucnttim&l pn-(jv-'i or the total
Lut^a:- nt^uixxUon, llatcrseaa i> itna oi
llm ttxmf nmUrm q! tbt Olid
CcmniMiiiod rz. and #lm& Vii*.
MO>:btv. vJiu: Oor^rr.eiiVoa uinl JLibcl lift
dincfcd 11m upctosmtMfinn. a vA>t adioau;
nl ydrx liui Leu:, dtuo by q|| pr’ita?/.!
•parbti in |it<[.KrKl nr In? tad “■ Ni>m t tricJ
oi 3ti«cu:li. Imi /hat Mr. )Jogba» re*
«ivcd J. lupt KMiniw ot JlOwu
fn v.'hrm he ulnijtcl lilu_-
trt uipputl cwuiiirn’cnQl nrwriiMfit
nKAtTK jSoiioUsia. 1# iul fYinftcrvfcVVw
•Avro •piftt’ COUltiui villi tb* rrmnn** 5 ti
wbifli ho Imp l It in wrtL' ITTio vttelo
xiifftininihri Of tim l.rmj
Vnrij is noir dUflng Ty~yc r all to secure
lib rc-n|fc< 10 i». Mitt! lib nr<Kp»'t« ct
ju:rm^ nr. an Auli^brithll llr ^R/ ifii-
Lbi*l otnjidace irv nm^iewd p>:c
Clipping: The Times, 15th October 1924
No one can ever know who instigated it. It was certainly not the work of either
the Labour or the Communist Party, both of whom were the victims of the
plot; almost certainly, the Foreign Office, the British Intelligence Service and
Conservative Central Office were to some degree involved, either acting in
naive belief of the letter’s authenticity or dishonestly, pretending that they
believed it. The readers’ views upon it will depend upon their personal political
predilections. But could anyone genuinely believe that Zinoviev would impart
such views and directives in an open letter to the British Communist Party,
when it was common knowledge that letters and correspondence to that body
were quite likely to be intercepted?
In any case, MacManus was actually in Moscow on the date appearing on the
spurious letter, and so Zinoviev could have given him any orders by word of
276
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
mouth; for, as Saklatvala pointed out to a crowded election meeting in
Trafalgar Square on 26th March, Zinoviev would never entrust such a
confidential document to the British Post Office Service. One can only think
that whoever perpetrated the swindle was either simple-minded or dishonest.
The clever contents of the letter really rules out the possibility of simple-
mindedness and, in my view, one is left, therefore, with the only other
alternative.
ROHDYrs y iv XGKT n BATT£JtHSA
A Ji.i ka I lvKi >17 Vr, HtflNn, i)K
•ulm.!,! unaltj &» Ncrita
F**- M ** 1 «"•< bmkiK,
rrwulc'A.n r». 31 ife
irrtihk. Art.T J5r. itsrMr, 1 ,j 4 viM
iMtfinx lu KUoil» 1 a Sxur* BVtukt
»«* appomrO » I»l it l.iViir AtaUnim
(of 'I mil bt» ojfMMit,
rwl rf^n%j Tk* *yt+rvnt r?-
ti'tVAl *1lfc ctiti td “ uJ airy*.
I *xlnf. Mil mi h>v4i ilhoniu Sotk>WA| 1 sm. <
Mr. Hngtfei MM h! Miul ml carry \ U |> r
r/n4ltjnr» Mid bi4d do ftirJi'/
IO.TtlO|l. Jl WJU TI»r1»T»ll>fcl, IrW'Str.
K Eulbit ilbnnHi rlanird to dvc Ka
rv*.dy >uni 3 A 00: bom ctiAir* Vt adUm-
Ulr jU/. • •
Clipping: The Times, 22nd October 1924
The ‘letter’ called upon the Communist Party in Great Britain to press for
government ratification of the treaties drawn up by the Labour government
and which were so bitterly opposed by the Conservative Party. It called upon
the communists to agitate more strongly and carry on more vigorous
propaganda within Britain’s armed forces. And it goes on to call for action that
would make it possible to paralyse Britain’s armed forces and ultimately to stir
up civil war.
[Editor’s note: A report by Gill Bennett, ‘“A Most Extraordinary and
Mysterious Business”: The Zinoviev Letter of 1924’ published by the UK
Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 1999, offers the following “best guess”
scenario of the document’s origen:
“It is well documented that White Russian, Monarchist, anti- Bolshevik
circles were outraged by the signature of the Anglo-Soviet treaties in
August 1924. The statement in the House of Commons on 19 March
1928 by the Labour MP Saklatvala, to the effect that the signature of the
treaties was followed by a flurry of communication between the Baltic
states and Berlin, with the aim of devising ‘ways and means... either to
frighten [MacDonald] out of his position, or to strengthen his hands and
enable him to shake off his extremists’, may well be correct. White
Russian Intelligence services were well developed and highly organised,
277
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
and included the operation of a forgery ring in Berlin. It seems likely
that they asked either those forgers, or their contacts in the Baltic states
with similar skills, to produce a document which would derail the
treaties and damage the Labour government. Because of British
Intelligence links with Berlin, information about the proposed forgery
could have reached certain members of British Intelligence Agencies
who were on the look-out for opportunities to further the Conservative
cause in Britain, and to discredit the Labour Party in the process.
Anyone in that position, and with a wide net of contacts in London, was
well placed not only to vouch for the authenticity of the Letter but also
to encourage its dissemination in quarters where profitable— and
mischievous— use might be made of it.”]
278
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Electio n Campaign.
ix THE LONDON
AREA,
• . i
COMXOIST DISORDER IX
. BATTERSEA
CAMPAIGN OF TERROR.
. (l*OM OlrR WPEt'tAL C01ULXSPOHDENT. )
, Tho Communists in North IUt,t«roea ore
•c»in doing th*ir best to spread terror
among the elector*. Their diaonieriy
mothods un similar to then* adopted last
year- -violent rowdyism at Liberal meet-
ings and in the streets. They have
already broken np uume of the Liberal
gathering : Mr. Hogbin has Buffered
personal injury and bin wife hue been
grossly insulted while canvassing. The
Libera] candidate has announced that if
tins oounse of conduct is continued all
bis public meetings will be abandoned
and ho will leave the matter to the I
electors.
Mr. Uogbin'a return was secured last
yasr by the combined vote of Liberals
and Unionists, and he is again receiving
Unionist help. But liis majority over
Mr. Saklatvala, the Indian Comnauniit,
wan only 186. Tho smallness of the
figaro wo< attribute.!, in part, to tho fact
that uuny voters, partk-uIaHy women,
were afraid to go to the poll. Otcr
15,000 tailed to record their votes. Mr.
Hogbin is now coodneting a strenuous
n«b". in a very difficult situation, omi
if he con induce tho electors to bolieve
that they will receive full protection
next. Wednesday, be will no doubt, como
oat oi it with an increased majority.
Ha w appending to nil oUusoo, and sa>s|
ho will be very much Surprised if good I
honest British working n>m vote fer a'
mau who is pot oven allowed to be
included in the Labour Party, In his
speech*# Mr. Hogbin has condemned
Socialist policy in detail, and his quota-
tion* from Communist statements have
am’iwd the auger of his opponents. A
handbill has been circulated in the con- •
crtitAiMioy giving a long Ust of unredeemed '
Socialist pledges.
It is understood that the local Labour
Party are not altogether a happy family.
Seme of the members wished to run an
official Labour oandidate, but it is seated
that at a meeting of what are called tho
"Joint divisions of thn Rattareew Labour
Party " them wse an overwhclauus
majority in favour of Mr. Saklatvala's
candidafn-o. The Communist cxtrertisU
flooded tho Labour moderaV*. It remains
to be seen whether |iw letter will oh II
vote Rod. Mr. Jiaktatval* and his
supporters are using the sweets a great
deal ; they hold some of thoir meetings
in the open, snd they chalk tho ranefi* |
data's name and qnallflisitiotts on the j
asphalt mads. His speeches contain I
the wildest statements, pcrochvr.g class j
liatred. Ha propaora among other things i
to pay for nowsures “for tho people's]
welfare " out of the H4U millions of
fateffe* reaufwd for the IhM—l
Clipping: The Times, 24th October 1924
The bombshell produced the desired effect among the British electorate. No
one can definitively determine just to what extent the outcome of the election
was affected by these sensation-seeking revelations. But the unusually large
turnout of 80% of the voters could well have been an indication of the panic
induced by the publication.
Needless to say, the Conservatives got in. (I hope I may be forgiven for
reminding the reader of a principle of Roman law, that the author of a crime is
he who profits therefrom). The Labour Party increased its votes by about a
million, but nevertheless lost some fifty seats. The Liberals fared worst, losing
some too seats in the House, leaving them with only 42 MPs.
279
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
But among the successful candidates was the Communist contender for North
Battersea, Mr Saklatvala. I imagine this was pretty irritating to the instigators
of the Zinoviev Letter scare! This time, he had presented himself to the
electorate as a Communist Party candidate, although he was supported by the
Labour Party and the Trades Union Council. That he survived the onslaught of
the Zinoviev Letter is remarkable— but perhaps the British newspaper readers
are not so gullible as might sometimes be supposed.
Tbn taitiiTe of Mr. Hogbut, Cowtitu-
lirwmlmt ,to retain the scar, in Bwterwk
North against Mr. SnU!„i. vala, tbe Com-
munist, u probably due in groat measure
tn the disturbed stntcof the division. There
a good de«l of rowdyism during the
contest, aik) the fear of tronble prevented
many voters form polling. Mr. Hogfain’s
majority last year was only 18t>- _ Oti
\V«dnesr}fty he polled 2.027 votes more
than U*t year, out the Socialists, in co-
operation with the Communists, whipped
up an additional 2,755. The electorate
hail mcn-nsed by 403, and it ia likely that
Mr. Saklatvala wo* helped by many of
the new voter*. A* many as 10,930
electors abstained from voting. In Balter
sea South, Lord Cnreon increased his
majority freer. 1,118 to 3,217.
Clipping: The Times, 31st October 1924
The Zinoviev bogey was more frightening to middle-class than to working-
class voters, on whose support Saklatvala relied. But psephologists would have
to concede, I think, that it was a great personal triumph for him to have won
the seat, and is an indication that the voters of Battersea trusted his word and
his integrity. It was only the Communists at the time who could be absolutely
certain that the letter was a forgery, since they and they alone knew, positively
and beyond any doubt, that no such letter had ever been received; and it
seems Saklatvala succeeded in convincing the people of Battersea of this fact.
A short while after the election and before the House convened, Father came
home late one night after Mother had gone to bed. He called up the stairs
asking her to come down and help him up to bed, as he had broken his ankle
and could not manage by himself. Mummy thought he was teasing her (as he
frequently did) and just laughed, told him to stop fooling and to come to bed.
But he was not fooling— he had indeed broken his ankle, and when she finally
took his pleading seriously, Mother found him standing in the hall with the
help of crutches. He was still on crutches when he took his seat in the new
Parliament on 2nd December 1924.
On the 16th December Saklatvala was told by the leadership of the
280
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
parliamentary Labour Party that he was not to be given the Labour whip. He
reminded them, politely, that he had not applied for it.
POLITICAL NOTES.
LABOUR MANIFESTO
ON RUSSIA.
CRITICISM OF PARTI
TACTICS.
Kor an hour and a half yesterday aftet-
the member* of the Patliamamary
Labour Party, meeting under the chair-
rxiamhip of Mr. Miel)aaald, dumkttd
with considerable franknem their present
pomtion in the political dram*. It is *n
open secret at Westminster that many Of
Uie rank and file «r* prufbimdly dissatia-
ned at the way in which they hava Lwi
k*d in recent months, and when In pirivate
coairinve they are not in the habit of
nuhciug their words. The official report
merely states that the course of tile
debate on the Russian Treaties and tho
ZinovicS letter was discussed, and con-
sideration was given to the debate which
is to take place oh Friday " on the
announcement made by the Prime
Minister regarding Cabinet intervention
m political prosecutions.'*
Labour Itietnbor* are already announce
uvr that they do not regard Friday's de-
bate as tmo on the Campbell case. They
have no desire to press that partlculiir
case any furtbar. bat rather to concen-
trate on the broad Question of the right
of the Cabinet to intervene in political
prosecution*. It is said that both Mr.
MacDonald and Mr. Thomas, who are ex-
PTOted to speak, arc fortifying themselves
with precedents which they claim will en-
I i rely justify the action taken by the late
Cahuiet. But Conaervativa members are
nnxioua that the Campbell case shall be
kept wwll to the fore during the debate,
«s they desire to obtain further informa-
tion as to (he circumstance* which led
the Cabinet to issue the instruction that
no political prooocation should be
directed by tlie Attorney-General without
tho sanction of the Cabinet.
The official report of yesterday’s meet-
ing states that the position of Mr.
SoldaivaU. the Communist member, was
also considered, and H was decided that
in view of tho resolution* of the Labour
Party annual conference with respect to
Communists and tlte Communist Party,
it would be impossible to admit him as a
member of the Parliamentary Party. No
mention is made in the official report,
however, of the anxiety that was dis-
played at tho meeting concerning the per-
formances of Mr. ruroell and his col-
leagues on tho Labour delegation to
Soviet Russia. Fean were expressed that
the continual eulogies of the Soviet ad-
ministration by the British visitors was
bound to do considerable barm among
the moderate member* of the Labour
Party in this country. It wee agreed that
a Statement of the attitude of the Parlia-
mentary Labour Party toward* tlie present
rulers of Soviet Russia should be pre-
pared and issued without delay, and a
small committed was appointed to k*ep
the parly in touch with any development
m the Russian situation.
Clipping: The Times, 17th December 1924
There is a marked difference in his speeches in the House once Saklatvala was
liberated from the Labour whip and adherence to Labour policy. No one man,
being the sole representative of a political Party in the House of Commons,
could hope to change the course of parliamentary events or to influence the
voting in the House on any issue, but what Saklatvala did manage to do was to
use the House as a platform from which to deliver persistent propaganda on
behalf of the communists. He acted as the irritant within the oyster-shell of
281
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
the House of Commons and frequently produced pearls which were quoted by
the press of the day— so the propaganda in the House spread to the
newspapers and to the electorate in general.
It was at 11.25 on the night of 17th December 1924, that Saklatvala spoke in
the House of his position as the sole communist member there:
“It may seem rather out of proportion for an individual to stand up and
say he represents a Party which claims to put forward its views, but I
appeal to the House to realise the position. We have heard about the
great fondness this House has for its traditions, and I can well
understand that it would take some time to adjust itself to some new
feature that arises here. I represent a proper, well-organised, well-
formed and rather too loudly acknowledged political party in the
country now.
“I am not one of those international socialists who take offence at
having friends in Moscow, Berlin or Delhi. As a member of the
International Communist Party, I submit that our movement does
extend from Moscow to Battersea, and much beyond that. It is as well
organised a Party as any other Party in the state, with its machinery, its
press, its branches all over the country. I would point out to hon and rt.
hon Gentlemen opposite— I do not know whether it was merely put on
or whether it was their sincere belief— that right up to the last Election
they were saying that our Party was the vital tail that was wagging the
whole of the Labour dog.
“We do not count by numbers, but what we lack in numbers we make up
for in solid importance. Our friends of the Liberal Party only succeeded
in returning to the House one member for every seven and a half
candidates, whereas our Party succeeded in returning one member out
of seven candidates.
“Considering the change that is now going on, and considering the
rightful place the Communist Party is taking in the Parliaments all over
Europe, this House might now grant to us justifiable claims and put us
in the time-table. I do not for a moment claim that our Party should
have a whole day, or a couple of days, allotted, but surely, now, the
House could begin to allot to us, say, an hour, when other Parties can
have a full day to themselves.
282
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
“I have looked over the debates for the last 4 or 5 days, and it seems to
me that our Party would be the only one that would stand in real
difference without getting mixed up at times. We find it very difficult to
find a line of strong demarcation... We have heard during the last few
days of the debate many points of agreement between the Tory Party
and the administrators of the Labour Party, and we have seen very few
points of strong disagreement... looking at it all I submit that it is for the
good of this nation and not for its harm, that one party should stand up
boldly to say that it always says what it believes in, and believes in what
it is prepared to say, and to act up to it.
“We represent that section of the working class that does not believe in
continuity of policy. We represent a section of the working class that
does not believe in saying at one time that your employers are your
enemies, that individual capitalism is the source of all your evils, and yet
that we should sit down with them, make friends and form a joint club
so that evils may disappear from time to time.
“With regard to the wording of my amendment, I remember that when I
was in the House in 1922 the first King’s Speech I heard was read and
debated. My hon Friend, the member for West Houghton was reported
to have said this: ‘I was proud to come to the House because I did not
during the war send any young boy to his doom, and the Labour Party, I
feel sure, will echo every word when I say that their advent to this
House, if it means anything at all, means goodwill among all the peoples
of the earth.
“I am glad to learn that the people of India rejoice because our numbers
are growing, and the people of Egypt feel better towards this country
because they know that the Labour Party brings international good will.’
I offer no comment, but I suppose everybody is agreed that, foolish as
the Indians may be, and wicked as the Egyptians may be, I do not
believe that today they entertain that belief that was attributed to them
last year.
283
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
"LENIN MEMORIAL”
MEETING.
USE OP THEATRE REFUSED.
Tliu tbialhi kutluirUiM CTOCfmod Lata
t*l«n act'xro hanuli.g tho use of tbo New
Oxbhj UMAtta to-rvirm w, for tbo potpou
Of hftliflntl ft “ Ixunift Mdoariiil " Dt*tb£ nv.H,^
tbd auspices of thj* Coinmusiist Party ox Great
iMttla.
Ur. Walts* Poyno, chairman nf tht Oxford
Limited, ovnon Of tb* Uitnln, haa Qift-i* the
fcOowing statemecC : — “ ff. have given notice
to the company ulilcU ho&de the lieeecr to qm
I ho theatre hvmi na that »e rtiuin! it u a
b***rh of the licence to allow a luewtin* <t(
lh» Vied to he held, and that we, thetvfm,
c a nn ot permit it. The p*noo eooeernod 1*
Mr. Oulllvtr, who has ft bccnce to peodur*
P*»y* foe a term which expires at the «od of
March. Mr. Oiilhver del not anderttand
uliat to be the charade* of the no.-eting
when he agreed to let the bulilln*- Labmtr
meetings have been held therv, ami they have
been quit* proper and orderly. Rut Mr.
Gulliver did mil know that tide wat to In a
special “ Lanin Monona] '* meeting. Mr.
fiuiliver ha* acoordiagly comiuunvalcd alth
tbe Co«wm*>ni< Patty ranti'lliu* the arrange-
ment, and 1 undone end that he will take b-»»l
«t«p. in order to ensure that the bon shall b*
rfluctivu." Mr. Payne added that It was a
debatable qorwtkm vrbKher the om of the
theatre for (he purposo intended can he within
the terra of thn la-one* granted to the- owiu-.-x,
which make* proraian for stage piays, c«u-
oectx, aud cmeica performanciw.
Mr. C. R. Cochran, the supeciuc lU-cnra of
th» theatre, w also eoexerned, and Mr. Pa, an
*taUa that Mr. Cochran shares hM vitw.
When approadied, however, Mr. Cochran pre-
ferred to make no statement.
Tlia meeting wan t<> have bees addecatMd
among other* by Mr. daklatynla, MR-, and
Mr. J. R. Campbell
Clipping: The Times, 17th January 1925
“With regard to the amendment of which I have given notice, I submit
that it is based upon the teachings and doctrines preached to the
working classes from one end of Great Britain to the other for the last
30 years. We are still telling the working classes that their struggle is a
class struggle, that their emancipation lies in the complete extinction of
the individual ownership system, and that their only salvation in
international affairs is not based upon Imperialism and protective
tariffs, and armies, bombs and insolent letters to Zaghlul Pasha, saying,
‘My soldiers and bayonets will remain where they are but still we are
pacifists.’ Or telling the people of India, ‘My ordinances shall rule you,
but still we are the Party of goodwill’, and telling everybody, ‘We believe
in a certain philosophy of life, but we do not practice it when it is a
question of the democratic Parliament of the British Empire.’
“In this respect I submit to the House that the things I would have
placed before it would not have been in any hostile spirit, but would
have been presented to this House and the country at large as the
viewpoint which will have to be accepted some day or other as the only
284
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
sane and honest view of life.”
The “insolent letters to Zaghlul Pasha,” Prime Minister of Egypt, concerned an
incident in Egypt on 20th November 1924, when Sir Lee Stack, Governor-
General of the Sudan and Sirdar (that is, Commander-in-Chief) of the
Egyptian Army, was shot and killed and his Aide-de-Camp and his chauffeur
were also wounded.
The British government sent what The Times described as “a stern note” to
Zaghlul Pasha saying, inter alia, that His Majesty’s government considered
that the murder was “the natural outcome of a campaign of hostility to British
rights and British subjects in Egypt and Sudan founded upon a heedless
ingratitude for benefits conferred by Great Britain, not discouraged by your
Excellency’s government.” The note went on to demand an apology, the
punishment of those responsible, the immediate suppression of political
demonstrations, and the payment of a fine of £500,000.
Egypt’s reply apologised, agreed to pay the fine and to seek out the criminals,
but refused sundry other requests contained in Britain’s letter. As a result of
further correspondence between the two governments, Zaghlul Pasha resigned
as Prime Minister and there was a political crisis in Egypt.
These events were debated in the House of Commons, and the transfer of the
Egyptian money (the fine of £500,000) to the Sudan “for benevolent
purposes.” It is not surprising that the incident and ensuing correspondence
raised the anti-imperialist hackles of the communist member for North
Battersea, whose contribution to the debate was as follows:
“May I point out that even a wise use of this money is not going to
satisfy the constitutional point involved in the whole issue. We were
informed at the beginning that a cheque was demanded and promptly
paid. The promptness of the payment does not at all prove either the
justification for the demand or the willingness with which the payment
was made. I have in mind 2 cheques amounting to £300,000 which
were also promptly paid by an eminent gentleman, and I think that the
British government have applied exactly the same tactics, and the
promptness with which the £500,000 was paid was due to the same fear
under pressure, intimidation and blackmail...
“The rt hon gentleman seems to speak as if it were some amount due to
the Sudanese government, that the British government were merely
285
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
collecting it in a spirit of benevolence. That is not so. The British
government are now using the name of the Sudanese government ...
“The cheque was extorted from the Egyptian government in a manner
which is discreditable to the whole history of international relations...
and it was because of the mailed fist of Britain that this cheque was
forthcoming... the justice at the back of it were your gunboats and your
blue-jackets.
“The British government had to pay after all what appeared to them to
be justifiable sums to the extent of £50,000 [it had been decided to pay
£40,000 to Sir Lee Stack’s widow and sums of £3000 and £5000 each
to the Aide-de-Camp and to the chauffeur] and not £500,000, and the
Egyptian government might be looked to indemnify the British
government for this £50,000... they have demanded ten times the
money they paid and now there is talk of ‘benevolent purposes’...
FORMER LABOUR M.P. AND
A COMMUNIST.
REFUSAL TO SliARE PLATFORM
Tlnrv «»n * atirpriw dsiulupcnant ot a
mfMiuc arrange |» V held la Uverpool Jut
eveiilag hj- tha !.irm»x>l Tradm Council and
Labour Party. *1 ui,|ch tbs child spoakere
advartimd wera Major A G. CUtm*. formerly
Labour MJ*. for Kaat Leyton, and Mr. A.
KakUivala, th« Communist M.P. Major
Church UOed to appear. Instead ha ssol a
tetu-r of protest to the chairman. k> which ln«
wdi- »
r* .■** uf" tars Urn ralHl lim hr O'
b 1 *!*! la hssir JU rty in aaft ■( mtoe
£ U** ** »i» •« naml *» dims
""J 1 ,»t rartlw »tm» wunoUs.
£, n i £ iz
^tir ,*
*“ .** , M* 1 . • Wes iriomet IrVm-
In »ml rilli a »Mrvn|jtrT, „i :Vr
ft”’ J.V T 1 ‘n nUcmism a. ailuu. n> Ur
icy iirMa m Uv* auitc*. it m *r«j
am /We I aav. ttu, u.n U.«d tu i
Major Church said lost ui K ht that no
iwsponaild. member ol tlia Labour Party
would have anythin* to do udli the Com-
munist Pmty Thry did not intend to make
proper ne ot the Pariiamesitarr marbrne.
Ttlflf 1 >h rjm to iWtdniy puiiitilytiiMijJ
Major Omti'U uaa Parliamentary Private
XotTwtary to the Pirssdmt ot tlia Boon! w |
radq lu Ur Lahmg (Jovcn.ineiit.
Clipping: The Times, 26th January 1925
“What is the Sudanese government but a military tyranny of a foreign
power imposed upon the innocent people of the Sudan? Who are the
Sudanese government? How many Sudanese have created the Sudanese
government? When the Germans entered Belgium and they created
there the new Belgian government, every man in this country said that it
286
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
was not a Belgian government, but that it was a German tyranny. In the
Sudan today the Briton is a robber who is sticking there by force of
arms...
“I say in the name of the Communist Party [laughter] ... which makes
you jeer here and makes your Brigadier-Generals go to Trafalgar Square
and enlist thousands of young men as Fasciti to fight them, that this
House is going to be now a party for the first time to this blackmail...
“Are we to understand that this nation is not entitled to recover its
common sense and sense of justice a little later on when the angry mood
has passed away? Are we to understand that the sense of justice of the
British Foreign Office, the British Prime Minister, the British House of
Commons and the British nation on this particular question is lost for
ever, and that we are going to misappropriate this loot in perpetuity?
“Is there no possibility even now of referring the moral point involved in
this exaction of £500,000 and of handing back to the Egyptians
whatever balance an impartial international tribunal may say you
wrongly took from them? Instead of talking loudly about benevolence to
the Sudanese, cannot you ascertain that the Sudanese are more self-
respecting than you are and would refuse to touch this blood money and
use it for benevolent purposes...”
When the House was debating the granting of £15,000 to send the Prince of
Wales on a visit to Africa and South America, David Kirkwood (Labour) said
the Prince of Wales should go on a tour of this country, to be shown the slums,
the poverty and the terrible working conditions of his own people. Saklatvala,
always offering a novel twist to older ideas, said he would rather spend the
money showing the living conditions of people like the Prince to some of the
slum dwellers of Battersea, by giving them a week of luxury living.
It was also stated that one of the purposes of the Prince’s tour was to promote
the sale abroad of British goods.
Saklatvala said:
“I fail to understand how a visit from the Prince of Wales can enable you
to sell to Argentine any article which you are not capable of selling with
the sound workmanship of British workers at a reasonable, competitive
cost... You cannot send royal ambassadors to any country if your
workmen are producing bad materials and try to induce trade through
287
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
the splendours of royalty. I would challenge hon members opposite to
take any shoddy material... and effect a large trade in it by sending
royalties abroad as salesmen...”
George Lansbury (Labour) added, “I can understand the argument that we
need a King to act as a representative of the British Dominions, but I have yet
to learn that it is the function of kingship to go round as a commercial bagman
doing trade.”
[Editor’s note: George Lansbury, later to become leader of the Labour Party,
had been Mayor of Poplar in 1921, when he led the Poplar Rates Rebellion,
opposing not only the government and the London County Council, but
leaders of his own party. The borough council, instead of forwarding collected
tax monies to LCC, dispersed the money as aid to the needy. Thirty
councillors, including six women, were jailed by the High Court for six weeks.
Council meetings during this time were held in Brixton Prison, until the LCC
asked the High Court to release them.]
On 26th February 1925, there was a debate on estimates for the Air Force.
Ernest Thurtle (Labour) proposed an amendment, thereby giving one or two
Labour members the opportunity to deliver impassioned speeches on
disarmament. George Lansbury’s appeal was particularly moving. He ended by
saying: “I believe our people have got the greatest God-given opportunity that
the masses of no other country have ever had— no democracy has ever had the
opportunity our people have. You have given them education, you have given
them municipal administrative powers, you have given them the right to
organise, the right to vote, the right to come here— what for? To let the world
be as it has been? No. We are here to say that mankind is one and that the
one-ness of human life is sacred— that the lives of the black child and white
child are equally sacred, because Christ was born and because Christ died to
make those lives sacred.”
[Editor’s note: Ernest Thurtle is noteworthy for having brought about the
abolition of the death penalty for cowardice or desertion in the British Army-
over 300 soldiers had been shot by firing squad during the First World War].
288
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
thk communist view.
Mr. RAKLATVALA (Battcisa*. X., Cotn.>.
■yanking ou bahslf of the Communist Party,
said lie supported the amenduimil- Be
objected to tills use of public money. At tlie
«B>e time, aonte of Uis friend* among the
OpjKuitKin ]0Vud Him Empire J they vented
Royally and Royal A mho s*a<iur». 11 thrv
wonted all thore luxuries they muet pey Jar
tbaoi. If they 'ranted an Empire and a R«y»l
nob el the head ol it 1 Loud cries ad
■Order" end " Withdraw,")
The CHAIRMAN. — 1 <lid not catch the
axjreisdou. (MltlsUiUl criea of M Royal
Mr. SAKLATVALA- — The Royal head, I
me i.i.
TIim CHAIRMAN was understood to say lie
■lid not catch Mr. RsklatvaUs aanreorioh. <a
be would have denlt mill It.
Mr. ft A K 1 -ATVALA, continuing. mid that If
Uu» enuutry or tlie Opposition wonted on
Empire and a Royal held for ths Empire, and
a Royal Ambaieadur to go about, either In
the streets of AyiShlso or of lfctt-ba* Aires,
they nuial pay adequately. Therefore, as a
inehiber rrpi«sw»lit.g the osil-and-out uortinr
«aoi point at view (tauslder). h* upors'ed the
Vote on the ground that the irlsds of tlx
expenditure wns tlio usual trickery of the
Mlnoeny, irbo were helping tlwms-lvrs at tlx
expeua. at the majority. This <u clow. tx-
pevdnutw. U was all fOMOu/lapr to talk ol
the rocnmorrUl setmtia *f the more ol
Wales and of hts discussing with may appre-
rtabto intelligence tho rmnmorvUl problems
of this nr that trod*. Noshing of Hie sort did
happen. To put it forward that Huso- writ*-
tloaa fmm Africa, the Argentina, or freon
blntgow rune from tlic pon pie in those places
was Otto more slinm in that Uusate of many
•fe&tn*. iMtni«t«ml crle* uf a OnlcO H w r»
n c-ompw.. Some t irr»e ago th#»r wm
told Hint the Prince ol Woles hi, mcek^”
cordial invitation from India to visit tliat
"f "» * fU ?" 1 Ambamador. The peopk
of India wild they did not want his Royal
liigliaess there. «tid the Government of India
had to empty out the gaofe and pay monay to
>p»rtators (Min£st*ri*! trio, uf “With-
draw.)
The CHAIRMAN Said Mr. RskMvaln wns
travelling rather far fkmsi Africa and South
Amertca. India did hot coma into the Vote.
Mr. fi.VKf.ATV Af. \ gold lw was drawing „
parallel m order to show 11m want of sincerity
» these fnviUtiona. which were meont to
•erve clit» iulitmx!*
Mr- ^KHBVRY 1 Dow and Broanley. LnhA
said he tmdenftood the argument that a King
waa needed as a, kind of titular ropmsentatl
of Um Rntuh nomtnKxns. but he hail vet to
leant that ft was tin lunctlou of Kingship to go
round ns a commercial bagman foe trade, Tim
qoesOMm before tlm Hones wna not R..psibHt
«r Monarchy but whether tills money alsiuW
bn auMit. They were not allowed to critlriw
Uia Rloc or Hie Prinrc of Woles on the flour
of that Kuum, but rl members of tlm Royal
Enmity arm to he sent round as Amhawtadon.
Im claimed tlm right tn criticise tbeBuHe fcd
not object to the Prince of Wakrs oe any other
peesou enjoying himself. but let it exit bo
camouflaged by saying he was going to do
buelness for the Britiii Empliw. He r|, ought
It a disgrace In tins country that money should
he spent ae It wns propoewd to spend the sum
10 the vote while there were tree of thousands
of men nod women bring an the border-line
of subsistence.
The amendment wns rejected hr J«« votes
to SO— mnyonty against, ne— and the Vote
was carried by m vote* to 87— majority. 20«,
A Supplementary Vote of £r.o o.«*j , u r a
grant in old of Hie Irish RniJor*' and Sold lets'
I And Trust wsa agreed to without debut-.
Clipping: The Times, 13th February 1925
Father’s plea was more pragmatic and mundane. He referred to the contention
of former speakers that Britain and France were life-long friends and that
there was no chance of going to war against each other. In that case, said
Saklatvala, since France has a powerful air-force of 120 squadrons, can we not
rely on their protection? He went on to say:
“It is said that we of the Communist Party are the enemies of the
Christian Church; that we are out to destroy all Christian churches. I
submit that the foundation stone of the Christian Church is, ‘Thou shalt
not kill’. You, who pretend to be the supporters and faithful upholders of
that Church, come and tell the nation tonight that the biggest function
of the government and of the state is to organise the most efficient
weapons for murder and killing. Organised murder, you say, is the duty
of the state and preaching ‘Thou shalt not kill’ is the duty of the Church
and you pretend that Church and state are the best friends of each
289
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
other...
WESTMINSTER, Thuusat.
On the Vote tor the Prince of Wales's |
vixit to South Africa end elsewhere, Mr.
1(j«xwood saM be thought the Prince
should pay for his own voyage, and no |
public money be spent for such purposes
white to many unemployed were in want.
On the whole he succeeded in being
earnest without being o decisive. a con- I
5; -do ruble feat in the circumstances.
Not so Mr. Buchanan nor Mr. Saklatvala,
who “ ltad no use far Royalty,” nor appa- j
rentlv for manners- Mr. Qtmnnot, m a ■
brief but very effective reply, pointed out
that the Princa was gouig to all those
countries by invitation, which it would
have been offensive to refuse ; and that
he was in the same position as any
British Ambassador sent upon a national
mission, except that not one penny of
the money was for his personal expenses. I
Tbe vote was. of course, curried by an I
immense majority.
Clipping: The Times, 13th February 1925
“Mr Ramsay MacDonald, speaking at Swindon the other night, said, in
the usual dramatic fashion, that whatever was won by the sword and
was attempted to be kept by the sword, would perish by the sword. Was
he intentionally sending the British interests in Egypt, in Iraq and in
India to perdition when he was trying to defend them by the British
sword?”
[Editor’s note: This refers to the violence perpetrated by the Army upon
popular uprisings against imperial rule in these three countries.]
A few weeks later, on 19th March, estimates for the Royal Navy were being
debated. Saklatvala said:
“We have in front of us an item of expenditure which the Rt. hon
gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty explained has to be taken by
the world as an index and measure of the love of this nation for peace.
We have a right to know from him, and the world has a right to know,
before he describes this nation as the most peaceful nation, if he can
produce in the records of the last 125 years any other nation that has
waged so many wars as Great Britain.
“We have a right to know, the world has a right to know, from the rt hon
gentleman the name of any other nation which during the last 125 years
has taken the lives of so many people of other nations in war, or for the
sake of keeping law and order, as the British nation during that period.”
290
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
THE “ WORKERS' WEEKLY."
sm W. JO YSSoX- HICKS. Home Seciv
lary iTwIrkenhamj, in reply u> Mr. Saklat*
'**-* OJatUnra. N„ Coo»|. who aoked 11 hr
inlcudw] to Ui« any action against tlte
It «rler»' il’reUu imuiijinpcr Ui impart ot on
•rtiria flititinl '* Tha Programme lor tho
Aimy," aa.ii! : —Mr attention Laa b*« called
lo lueatlun.. bet an at portent
iidMaod 1 do not propo* to Uko any action
M ioi^ ui \ a ,L . ' l^'ix'ur ltugUar oral
Ministerial rlwvmj Mr. Saklatv m i -Uncr
ii i 1 ,, 1 b "A «**»Oemon consider that ths
»u Wiy nnr dlttcrvut Irom the
provlotn article ot tlie M'litm' H>aiv, in
wWct, ortk.il »U iMy withdrawn t iMlnt-
?*•**“ laughter.! 8m W. JoYNaoK-Hit-KB.—
« lit 1 Ih difficult to M p rw *n
Sffff-fe ’'»notn E rnilm o| wickedness.
lAUwieterlal laughter anil clucn.)
Clipping: The Times, 13th February 1925
In the same speech he referred to the discipline of men in the Navy and a
member called out, “What do you know about it?” Saklatvala replied to the
interruption, “I admit that Battersea is not noted as a naval port, though half
of Battersea has the honour to be represented by a very valiant naval officer
[Viscount Curzon, MP for Battersea South].” (Perhaps out of embarrassment
at the interruption, Saklatvala in the next sentence addressed the Chair as
‘Comrade’ Fitzroy, instead of ‘Captain’! The Times reported the amusing and
almost certainly unique incident the next day, saying there was laughter in
which the Hon. member himself joined.)
Saklatvala was to return often to this contention of Great Britain’s record as an
historic killer-nation. And when people criticised the Russian revolution
because of the bloodshed, he always claimed that far more human blood had
been spilled to create and maintain the British Empire than had been shed in
the creation of the Russian Bolshevik state.
BRITISH RED CRESCENT
SOCIETY.
; TO THE SUITOR OK THE TIMES.
Sir,--My attention ha* been drawn to
the report in Uw ** Parliamentary Dc*
batefc” of tbr 12th tint, (hat Mr. Kaklat-
vaia <lu«ntkinod bU Majesty' u Secretary
of State for Foreign Attains as to whether
the (.toverunicnt intended to move the
French and Spanish authorities 1st give
facilities to the BfritUh Red Crectent
Society U> send n thtxfieal mission and
medical euoplie* to tJio Ritta. We ate
, gratified to see that Mr. Safclatvala take*
I an iwtnrrst in ottr humanitarian work 1
i desire, however, aay that hU question
was lest, either directly or Indirectly, ii*.
I spired by this . sociotj .
Your* faithfully.
AMj-lKR ALI. President. Krtlinb
Red t'rrerect Sociotv.
291
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Clipping: The Times, 25th February 1925
He took the opportunity to use the Naval Estimates debate to call for a better
standard of life for naval ratings and their families; he claimed the right for
naval ratings to join trade unions just as their fellow- workers outside the
forces were allowed to do; he called for more freedom of worship and political
affiliation for the ordinary seamen.
THE L.C.C. ELECTION.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIME3.
Sir. — May I direct the attention oC your )
KKui.tr* to the grave peril which threw lens ;
London at tlio L.C.C. election on Thursday '
next, March o ?
Tho London Labour Party have nominated
113 candidate*, wlto liuvo the full xuppart uf
the Communist force*. Then.' are CiMutiHtuisU
among tlio " Labour " candidates. Tlwi rvoent
decision o t the National Labour Party not to j
exyet the Communist* from its rank.* him re-
voided the strength of Cocnmuni*ni, particularly
in London. As tho Il’oriar*' Wtrkly. the Com. !
munist organ, recently stated. “ not a single ,
Urge local Labour Party in the large town*
arid cities of Britain h*vn wupported rite ih>. :
cistern to expo! tbo Cammunict* from their
rank*."'
The spirit which animates the London Labour
Party i» shown by tl» violent «|wtww which
are being made in many divisions. Fur
j example, at a meeting lic-Jd on Sunday last in
support of the Socialist candidate* fur North i
Battwrwso. Mr. ft.iklatvala. .Vl.P., stated I—
Wo wont the Muiurtial Mimur. Ui knew th.it
| liimJiiii bo king* to the S>oi»H-t worker*. the rcv»-
! lalKiiiACf worker*. the clnw-ooncoSmi. worker*. anil
| ttur International worker*. UV uaat the LC.C. i
j ma varied into the iastiuiaaat of Cuuwnunlrt imn-
I Rsnila.
Tliere can lie no doubt that the Socialist amt
Communist Party arc making a mod f urinal • :
abla attanijA to capture. London's cent r* I ;
authority, not with the object of giving good I
municipal administration but for tlie nurjmte I
i of introducing " Poplar “ methods into London '
Bovemment. I tlurefore appeal to every ,
man and woman who votod for const it u -
1 tional government at the Parliamentary election I
in October Iasi to vote again on Thursday
next far sound, saimi and economical municipal
government. Failure to do so must inevitably
result in grave damage and injury to oiu
municipal sorvicee, to our trade and industry, (
and to the welfare and happinea* of the citizens :
of London.
REGINALD BLAIR, chairman. London
Municipal Society and National Union
of Ratepayers' Association*.
Palace Chambers, llrtdgc-ntrcet. West,
minster, S.W.I, Feb. ;tfl.
Clipping: The Times, 27th February 1925
“If Admirals can go to Trafalgar Square and deliver fulsome speeches to the
British Fascisti, why should the members of the Army and the Navy in the
lower ranks not be at liberty to join the Communist Party and carry on
Communist propaganda?” he asked.
292
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Early in April, Saklatvala moved an amendment to the Co-partnership Bill at
its second reading. He returned to his strongly held conviction that cheap
labour in the British Empire was causing unemployment and great hardship
among the workers of Great Britain: “The factor which creates opposition
between capital and labour is the unjustifiably existing capitalist, and the only
way to remove opposition between capital and labour is to remove this
interloper called the individual capitalist.” [Hon. member: “Are not you a
capitalist?”]
“Then remove me!” retorted Saklatvala. Once again, he was being identified
with his capitalist family, from whom he was to be officially severed within the
next few weeks.
COMMUNISTS Ammo AT JAFFA.
Mr ORM8BY-OORB. Vivflar-Sooretiry,
Colonies (Salford), replying to Mi
Sa*utvia | Bittern**. N., Cam.) mid j — Sfcx-
t**n prenona »•**» armtod co tba day at
I/ord Balfour's arrival in Jaffa «a a nu*i-
strate'a' Warrant lor actio* likely to um
an tu'matUnto breach of Lb* peace. Tbtty
Tie" all member* of a snail Cammufitit
group. Ko bicoch of U»e ptaoa actually
oecurrwL Mr. SanarvAUL— M*r I ask
whether his Many's Government coimc*
»»ally devise a (don to introduce British
clnlkaalioh Into other (mtifo'a countries with-
out Mte u» of prison cells and alr-bowbol
Hr, ORwuiT-OoiLK. — There If Communists
Issued inflammatory aUacka on Lord Balfour
ortho most insulting natim sad diatribe ted
tBHfl about the town. 1 thick that the
octfon .token by the I'oleotin* OorenuBemt
abooluteiy essential ; otberdao there
troilM hfje bpts a vary serjogs brooch of Um
pofW. Mr li\jSj»TyaLa, — Would cot If
young Bngliahmf« do the um* if an Arab
chief eiu»e b«W to dictate to yon how yon
alionld livq? • •
Clipping: The Times, 25th February 1925
In another debate he said it was cruel to divide people into those who worked
with their brain and those who worked with their hands. “There is,” he said,
“no worker who works by hand alone without working with his brain at the
same time. No engine-driver, driving his mail train at the rate of 50 or 60
miles an hour in a blizzard, is working merely with his hands. No spinner, no
weaver, no smelter, no miner, no carpenter, no brick-layer, no stone-mason
can do his work correctly if he does not use his brain just as much as the Lord
Chancellor and the judges and lawyers and architects. Each individual worker
works by his brain as well as by his hand, while a few lucky ones sit in easy
chairs and pretend to work by brain and refuse to work by hand.” [Hon.
member: “Like yourself!”]
293
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
“Like myself!” Saklatvala continued, “I do not claim to be an angel on earth. I
claim to be full of all those vices, all those defects, all those drawbacks which
the present hideous individual capitalist system imposes upon me. The only
difference between me and hon members opposite is that I am willing to get
out of it at the first possible moment...”
So Saklatvala remained extremely active in the Commons, making lively and
apposite contributions to many debates on a variety of subjects. At the same
time, he remained as vigorous as ever in his political campaigning outside the
House, travelling up and down the country addressing large and enthusiastic
crowds of working people. Although we had very little money, Father never
accepted anything in the way of expenses and travelled often at night (largely
to save time, but also I think in those days there were concessional fares for
nocturnal journeys).
Whenever he had to change trains in the middle of the night, he would
telephone my mother and have a conversation with her; he remained always a
sentimentally ardent partner and tried to mitigate the loneliness he felt during
these enforced separations by frequent telephone calls; just as when the House
sat late, he would make a point of phoning her in the course of the evening to
keep in touch.
j&mtfctg Utorfee*
TIIF ON1.Y I.AROl'R SIMMY NEWSPAPER
a,A VS5S^! N AT “WILL COOK LET US DOWN ? MORE KOR NAV
Clipping: Sunday Worker No l, March 1925
In March 1925, The Sunday Worker newspaper was launched, to which he
294
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
gave his support, being one of its founders. He journeyed to Dublin and
addressed a large meeting there. He spoke in favour of the Labour candidates
in Battersea during the London County Council Elections in February. He
continued to give much attention to the Workers’ Welfare League of India, and
a resolution was passed by the Executive Committee of the All India Trade
Union Congress that the WWLI should be their representative at the Trade
Union Congress in the UK.
A journalist described how he was going up in the lift at the House of
Commons to hear Oswald Mosley speak in one of the Committee rooms after
his brief visit to India
“I met Saklatvala, his head, as usual, deeply immersed in statistics. ‘On
your way to hear Mosley?! asked. ‘Mosley!’ he exclaimed, ‘what can he
know about India? Five weeks there at the outside! No’, he went on, ‘I’m
going to hear Sir Willoughby Carey— he was Chairman of the Bengal
Chamber of Commerce and he is a great employer of labour in Calcutta.
He’s the man to listen to— not Mosley.’”
[Editor’s note: Oswald Mosley, having begun as a Conservative, was at this
time a member of the ILP and a Fabian. In 1932 he would go on to form the
British Union of Fascists].
During the parliamentary debate on Winston Churchill’s budget speech in
April, there was pandemonium and uproar in the House when Churchill
accused working people of cheating over unemployment benefits. Labour
members said he was insulting the whole Labour Movement and demanded
that he withdrew the offensive remarks. Saklatvala rose and said: “The
Chancellor of the Exchequer has brought about this disorder, and it falls upon
a revolutionary Communist to restore order.” He proceeded to give a detailed
and critical analysis of the budget proposals.
Mr. WAKliATVALA iDattecaeA, 8.. OmO.
rising to continue the delate, was rccereod
»iti. iTTiH* of Tbride ” frmn tH« MminteriatUrb.
but these died down, aad there wa* much
laughter when the ben. member stud : —
“ Thu ChiunclW i>f the Rxolunjucr having
fsll.i.1 , it tsJU (u a Communist rev id 'Jt 1 1 xuo y
to restore order.”
At toe minutes to It o’tOoeh, wha'lo Mr.
SAKLArvihi u*a suit sjicaUng, Mr. Bsu>vr:s
moved Ihsli 1h*» qwesinm tm jiow fiuU A tlivi-
Ktoti uv *i. first- challenged, hut was not }*jr-
yisi.ii in,
Tho original motion wm then agreed to.
and liw Hih>h returned,
Clipping: The Times, 1st May 1925
295
CHAPTER 15
Banned from the USA
Refused a visa to enter the USA in 1925 ; subsequent protests.
One of the most notable events of Saklatvala’s career, which became quite a
cause celebre in the press, occurred in connection with a conference to be held
in Washington by the Inter-Parliamentary Union.
tor tlu» second ttirni within a tlm
GWotr Corporation ywt»c<Uy ended
abnijKly, On each occ4»km tho tiauUi
Wa5 Jf UH *° ******1 of the uutgijftaUMi to
a DrftUh Cammqiufct P«f?r meeting
Hal] it which *7. Saktotvahs
M.r., to »p«ak. The labour group
oustructsd the pro coed in ®i end brought.
about » do mum. mowing tUit fwvmmdiU
coca do ration should bo given to the auptica-
tion tor » meeting when the mbwaker na* a
^IcmW at Parliament. who had takun tlm ir\ih
ot allegiance to the Kina and Cavtitutioa.
Clipping: The Times, 19th August 1925
In 1923 Father and Mother had attended the IPU conference held in
Copenhagen, which my mother had greatly enjoyed; she often spoke of it to
me in later life, when she recalled with nostalgia how the wives of the
members had been entertained by the Danish royal family, and their friendly
simplicity and lack of formality made a great impression on her.
MINORITY MOVEMENT.
CONFERENCE TN BATTERSEA.
Commtmirt* in this country hove lately
tweixnw more direct id their dcmoixts tor n
prupsennda campaign among the rank and
Me ot tbe Army, Kory, and Air Fotwv The
subject was raised again, oo Saturday at Dim
oatood nnaaal ixmfaretves ot the National
Minority «h» body which H mIi-
lrifi lu thin country to diraecoluats the doctrines
ot revolutiocury Cormnun5sm through Jiercieo-
tioc nt tlie trade unions.
Tin* conference was ln4d in the Dattcmca
Town llall. and it is stated that Ran* 600
“ dcUgstrv " were present, “Including 137
from the provinces," Mr. Tost Mask presided,
and had with him on the platform Mr. SnJc'it-
voli, UlO Communist 1LP. tor Butterreu, and
th«* Moyer ol Battersea ;JUr. C. Mason).
The Cbaikkas said that in the struggle with
tlie min sown ers it ua» something to be glad of
that tlie miners, b&cVail by trade union
solidarity. ratocesctoiiy “ ?*.)d up *• tin iMVnere.
Thsy had to ask themselves, he cootbiiMal,
whether they were prepared to moot (he oppos-
ing forms when tiro next round began. They
must b« trunk and admit that at present tl*y
were not ready. The problem ol getting public
opinion on their aiita wes easier and tumpJur
than the question ol the Faroes,
It was their duty to start homed it t el y f, big
campaign of propaganda among tlie workers in
the Army. Navy, and Air Fores, in order that
they should know tb» foil tenth of the matton
Tbo Trade* Union Cocgrwn, tbs Labour Party
Conference, tint local patty ocyanfcaticum. thu
brails union bronebe*, the trades crmtirils tiie
factory eamnUtteca, and the organisations of
the unsruployed should get bus)- St, order to
avoid tin* calamity which tlse rnltng classes
were plutmioc. last tixan make cure that there
wnqid not ha a slutfe soldier, oaQnr, or oitmiin
who would dors to raise a lh #sr against their
blMliua
Mr b.utTyivraA sold (hot the owlets of tbe
Minority Moremout for tlut workers were,
e^joy lile. owl horn the
uorld. A great struggle was coming along. Tl»
Joiners probiem amid not be solved bv Huyfd
bimmiiHioos Ho stood openly, he tfeciared,
u b dctufiiliiFil oad coomy oi tu*
Union Jack ond Kiltlsh Imperialism.
rim a* a m
296
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Clipping: The Times, 31st August 1925
As anything of an international nature (anything but an international war, that
is!) appealed to Father, he arranged to attend the 1925 conference in
Washington. My mother elected not to go— she had visited the States many
years before and had no wish ever to go there again. Father had two brothers
in the states and, fond of his immediate family as he undoubtedly was, no
doubt he must have been greatly looking forward to visiting his younger
brothers, Phirozeshah and Beram. He applied for and received his visa in
readiness for the trip.
Sir Robert Horne and Colonel H.C. Woodcock then wrote to the Times
complaining that Saklatvala was to be part of the British parliamentary
delegation; Woodcock went as far as to say that if Saklatvala was included, he
himself would refuse to attend. The Times wrote that Mr Kellogg, American
Secretary of State, appeared to have no objection to receiving Mr Saklatvala.
M.P.S’ DELEGATION TO
WASHINGTON.
COL. WOODCOCK AND
MB. SAKLATVALA.
r hare n*r«i ved fxmi UtlniuH 11. CL Woo.!-
cnrl,, L niiMii.i M.lL for tAerton, % copy at thr*>
fnUcunig Mia which h« hu adilrunyil to Mr.
t. Msd.liwi. .Secretary of the Ini«r-I'nriU
«Kat«r* I n ) 00
, 1 it** invitation
lo Vltit \\ Aililagtoa *wl (Htmw* 05 a HrttbJh
oaiiplt At I he forthcoming iAttf-FvIm.
mi-nUty Cunin'Kf 1 w*» unaware ut ttic (net
IliBl Mr. -S.it, Intvai*, tlia (ommunlxi 1 |,p. far
^oHIi Hatter**!, wax »lw> to 1 m; It nwoihn of
ttu: .Irlrft/itlOo. 1 hjLVO .lore liuulo 01} Mil
ociionnitatl witt) vkho of hit pubdio dcdara-
lion*. among ->i irhl.-h I in», quote the fatluir-
u*c r—
_ JtStiKi rmrt? Jt ttub u|i rtf srtsUcrtllc till
I d‘.*“ U IW “'" '* h * ' “ ““ u •nwSS
tlvTi I* «» hu** ill am
Uk Inim Jack rfuM o*k to luncuot.
I UT. Lm in dnlKl <tLc Vluai rtrk."
»ra but a fear t> picul quotation* from
Hr. baUuivolii » uttoances, uai they fc*vu |«t
me to the caneluaiua that, modi «• I wish
*° tinL ' ,9t to tiie Luitnl .states
stiil Canada, I must to hr in any way
assodatml vrithadeLcgAC who holds such view,
as Mr. .Sqklmvala lu^ .C|ir»w<i
i hSTw had the haums*' to serve lot over 2{i
>*«* in hw Maleuy'x Rmw, and o » local
subiort to 11. M_ thy Kin it I think 1 ..Would
Ek< dvdoyal to them with whom 1 have served,
st»d to my cotudiUieata wVio have neot me to
I'artMmciit In maintain tlor Lulugnty of our
zrcat Kuipire, if 1 eoeueuEyd to be a follow
deJcgaU with cot uho«o loyulty and tnunwt
arn opposed to Dim no an try.
The danger of misunderstanding nod mlv
representatioa hi too great to ibrw? who do
not undct>i«jiil the feoiatyd pomtian which
ilr. JMiklaUxl* holds in thm umntry.
. radit UiyMy cwcomstanee* I am foreud to
the decision that If he rom m a nrprtaouUitivc
of tb* Parliament of Great Itrttain, fo spite
of my great disappointment. I must deeitnoi
to lx luaucudmi with the dvUpjitJon. »«.»
much M 1 regret it. 1 must ask ><*i to with-
draw my na«)u from the lt»t of Brvtkn dclunt«
Yours truly. '
H. CL WoopooCK.
House of Cummcos.
Clipping: The Times, 8th September 1925
Further letters were sent to The Times asserting that other members would
withdraw from the delegation if Saklatvala was to be a part of it. One member
wisely observed that if all members withdrew as a protest, this would leave Mr
Saklatvala as the sole representative in Washington of the British House of
Commons!
297
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
A report from America published in the British press said that Senator Borah
conferred with President Coolidge and Mr Kellogg and afterwards said that Mr
Saklatvala should not be excluded from the USA. He added: “This man has
been free to express his opinions in England, and our government cannot
afford to be more afraid than the British.”
But at the last moment, on 16th September, Mr Kellogg announced that
instructions had been telegraphed to London to revoke the passport visa that
had been granted earlier to Mr Saklatvala. All the newspapers headlined the
news of his exclusion. Many speculated that the revocation of the visa could
only have been on advice from the British government.
298
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Clipping: The Sphere, 1925
Under a full-length photograph of Shapurji and Sehri in their London garden,
The Sphere wrote, “It seems so obvious to me that Mr Saklatvala might, in a
party of 41 members, be expected to suffer some measure of modification of
299
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
his extreme views, and that there was no virtue in making a hero of him.”
The Morning Post correspondent wrote that the paper had arranged to send a
reporter to Washington to report on the conference, but that since Mr
Saklatvala was not to be a part of it, they would not bother to send anyone:
“There is nothing in it for us if Mr Saklatvala is not there.”
Ai-trr fhfi New Ycrk
,r * Wiuliiiigtsc ’.bey will h* Hi* ^uut,
Wf 'itt Jluap, uliil. wlU reccj'.x-
luJ^.a;. ana UnuUf»:rt frc* CS Mb
iho xn will U, oltcNd by
Uoumliiin [roup uii D <-r-,irn tcrr.-
tac y It Blurt h« iWiufiuXkinH <-*l. tlii
n'yut>:r» u( izf deW-i-Xmi n> — no
»U*«d Crcrr, tb* cl<l*uL.v. r vU Irp
»hn Wkjil omJiuVICU tittl lining lu-u
»lrtT - ttu r- •wd Sun* •}«•)• tU do
w • >K Ul llttMrt. till -edtliiur uwOir of
ujn»riniv.^jil'gOT»«7TKi»tnt.
'■olurei VV Minorca looter v»u or .
VMUmJuy ATfefnOCfe ul * im«tic£
lot «-*■* tmiilwi c£ i-e b’Jlidi giirap nt
lit? fc'-?Pir:Hnur1oi7 Uni under
«-e Jirosij.m-V c* !<tr Home
Alter a fjiorl iliinuvKin d i^ul u^rooii
•j"* looiufoiy -^t-ronry af ilia rwcu
f^*". ¥• WuMliaf-! klinnH trod ilm
fiillovnng -woly •—
l*c*f Cfllaw. Wrftlovi,-! tut-* t!jiy.
: b&v: tlK4*ahi II ut^uy to
puf pbce is. It# Mr.rKh IJ.vji* cf U#
] ti-.T>p4#.*Mii. C44/V lio>xa vh/ii V -#a% -n» r
•o I i^v.-xocj it Witt,-’p w . c ?rt .
Jill permit m 1v oy tint I rtJuk y;a ltt
dtcaj m » tn.1v A diM^ituuivJrp,
va c lrjt«r-J‘«Xh»r •Silu.-r P rtn- u rtla
r*»*€ it a fcjtu t xu-ny lUr'MuuU. >bo
*?•£* 4 ( |<iTLa.hI •. W, uaoiK*
" Pulatxranl ir*y foil LAl Cmnr, .»tut
n»«C4l*«t '4 loi.u u rat'rtsl Vi l>: urw«>f/,
61 all <*rrt*«rar- • U tb# Lnko. mi f A
Buutrxu! Irsii t V sv tv. feriatiu
».tij Lb Aiu-mVa n Imv* ust A A 01 .
ftr. XtAlitw < r. 6 xumUr ;|u K^ITvI.
PvrUcnx^., tot W.# i.id*J the LjVt Pw.-tla?
Ki^tai* Lew, Ul b thifvioco earHVd |« jv,
t,c tod liar. ooLnaar*' Y„
lutcntm ei »■*• Yvi, ut^ldo. hi|
Iu=i in In* IWi <L jut m %vi am
'•«lr:c:«d ertt alrc m a * >n«u sia.br :f
Hx»» tt r.’fuu'tiA
lb* tlrrnp *>i*K r.j A^iir^ + ,»
* A-.cv’l.ua. occ U:n« It hw \ii: rs^rru ll>i«#
«< a li. j to I oV^vcoi, an: lb.
ixntoA -?I»->»/ M y, may bxli n;. -; illnmrit
PliiAa o 4 Yirjr. H U „\,ri Hereof. v >U t
V C«try rocahA- rf h* RAI jL >Jroc.r
to l.tk, . rl *j aim: :cutm a# yn* -r.^ Xn
ri||ljt jyiur d:r*» *i u " u-iKn
•< Ua drj:Ui r*rl»iL_Atil Lu
t»*Ar<UOt/
«rMh l‘i» |
u uwiihr
r*"^f >b«
t-M Aedfob ulim, aArijv
UAnbci l< 10 qth*r jfirl nionta
M i'.’S DELEGATION
TC) WASHINGTON.
RUTTLSII GROUP AND
MR. SAKLATVALA.
RErr.Y TO COLONEL
WOODCOCK.
T»r Puj-lbiBiMftnry Ovm.ipaa<3ciiC)
H li Iiu» Mvpreduj j^y rrtJw.
nrted^r of PAHyMucui ,.hn bud dMuXutl
o loin Urn Ekitbli .Ui^jbMon Ic tlit*
inuir.Pi.r>iwrurMiCttrv XTr.inn Cuilinnc.
A IVn-huitiUui »ad crtviuni will folloo
Inert Ml. by Crt)cc:l a. fi. Wlvx*,Xk.
d.l # ., ulm Jysfl Y4tSJn.wn bw Mu.
n lit® 1 TGilE/1 tint Vr. S.Ufdii'u, 11 k
.'kwrmnlW nusnlwr rf Huiam <4
.•vobmxw.. L 10 In -ee rt \c* oaotiulw
II Lw bM*i kjtmm {c.r 0CIUJO AivV#
:««*l ihnt Er. ^uklatv^In mWlKlcii In
»tWml th* dldiicvub, kd hf ri*il lyJuct
kiU Held hi l'j>yjhaf 7 r. r.vir. U |»c^
»Dd CLu rnnt*3rr it 66 dm'jxii ^ ^ rrmfh^w
i[ i*4 British ft/v-ii dtirm^ tyi V'.%. IIu.
rALUb'y w«rr it Wuj j;K*i fainted
>dt, «£rj dui i;rou}i nrr#^H. li^v
»vCfV KannH«y> n* l'fL-imLjuiil ->hj> b?!xiJ>
0 {tut L i-^c. han a J>2iJi>j L rivTA I'' .erf— i-L
Jm ixxifotttu* .r h* eo <>iuva. Member*
im nnl bjr tb^ir CKUtl.t, k# »»,
J»» W* .^l£h tin* Krr.po f*6r-aiii^uit«y
1 m r» 1 rnvc . blue* t'*^ ruimJtce I-a* In hr
rt\ny L.istilvr nf L'uiuu v.^j
j *nhinc to ±<+j Lia Irani IiLduinn ;
■j aw. i Ott and b«uU mny join Qn|
Mrtgr.
■ a * ■ .
vhn 61O to lunilO. at W-J.l. k -L M • IKat,
^ nv *^T» h i>.k m r«nh ahM fia} ' aviid
Aum.
1 1** rrprntoft of t.*«« ^Way^tioiL w21
Knjjiaod in Um Cnnoiiu on fhcdttuj-
l^c l^i Vd WdJ tlbvU. drum Nmr Ycck
by Houeml tcoio Ott, ItptMLliir '(j to
H'CckLia^ti:i|, wicw tba CuaTimr.^
rjMri in. lui i>fi4ol on Ootofc or 1.* The
Wculiujgtrn OIWROOS Of tirt tnnfNw;.:
will cicio cm J ntdn tlai
S*V?fl via Iw.Hi fur Ycrk.* On
OotuUv 10 rhnjr w>l| Niuiiwna lYilte.
Arv 2 ti*ea tm.f#— J r#i HninilroTi. T&D-cibi,
•> 1 *^ 6 , Umilmil, atvH QujOIuL At
LKltHi 6 Trill h* falJ Ua
Htrw d PArtUunMi'*. Amfig ttur mb
to be diurjaial atm tk#i -w u:p
wm* «f kiVijuViiuic] Utir,
cuatmrn, the pctioei ct nnliiiiM] mhw —A.
t>M. dttlk’ 4 , tlia rafinc'lMa d
arr-xrr^l^. ana. Uki Furli*m-n'Xijy
■vnt^TTl. Sir Rofcctl Hunx will bmd tii!
<W*ywt>-r- chil OMIlUiV. anil tt IS
W^i thl* '.ht> Fncich dKi^itkn Trill
iudiuln M. Hemnc, aoi tjumsa«
OvUi^nuimi Hrrr l^trth.
7b f-:L>j»rfar 'wnhilHi ata [iw ai ] lAaairrv
fl nfly ul 6 nxcitfl nail In thn 71r>iuj Cuuli-
cuM.r-df nut. ycrvcnUr >—
[? r lf xra sf It# litr.il Orw-MAjia: Cat
•Jy 1 *? t u h IO rw Ml •
lO'KrtU.f -» l*r*|f* l^rillCC
Clippings: The Times, 9th September 1925
The Daily Telegraph reported a huge protest meeting held in Battersea:
“For some hours before the building was opened there were long queues
extending around the Town Hall, and when the doors opened, there was
a wild rush for admission. The hall, which is capable of holding 2000
people, was quickly filled, and an overflow meeting was held...
“To cheers from his audience [Saklatvala] is reported as saying that for
the last four months attacks had been launched against him,
underground and overground, and he had resisted them all with a smile
of indifference. ‘I stand by every word of the columns I have spoken,’
said Mr Saklatvala. ‘I have not spoken these words with any feeling of
300
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
hatred for the people of Britain, or through any nationalist emotion at
being an Indian. I challenge any honest person to face me with them on
a public platform. Great Britain has no right to rule India any more than
Germany had a right to rule Great Britain.’
“His passport for America was in his pocket, he said, his passage was
paid and his baggage was packed; three or four men were watching his
house, and saw his luggage on the steamer. And, like the allies, they had
to send an SOS to America to win their battles for them. The first thing
America did in answer to the appeal was to adopt most unconstitutional
and unreasonable methods. If America were so thin-skinned, if she
always lived in terror of Bolshevism, if she had not the back-bone of a
man, if she were afraid of the voice of truth on behalf of the workers, she
ought not to have given out pompously and said, ‘We welcome all the
world’s representatives to a world’s conference.’
“He was ready to go to America now and face any tribunal or any
Committee of the Senate or any public meeting. If any one of the British
Delegates had the courage of a man, let him come out on a public
platform. He took no exception to being classed a poor, common
immigrant, he added, he only represented the poor devils of Battersea.
(Cheers)...”
After this demonstration of popular support in Battersea, some of the more
reactionary elements of the constituency tried to organise a petition to the
Mayor, asking him to prohibit Saklatvala (their elected parliamentary
representative) from holding any further meetings in the Town Hall. Nothing
came of it. A number of resolutions protesting against the ban were prepared
to put before the Washington conference.
George Lansbury wrote in the press:
“The American government, by its action, has made Comrade Saklatvala
a political figure of international importance... The action of Coolidge
and Kellogg was that of the usual capitalist cowards. Liberty to them
means liberty for those who will do and say what the capitalists want
them to say or do... It is well that in so public a manner, American
statesmen should reveal themselves for what they are. Today in
America, hundreds of men are in jail for their activities on behalf of the
Workers’ Movement... hundreds of foreign workers are being deported
301
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
for their activities in the Labour Movement...
“There is no reason why any of us should feel disgruntled because of the
action taken against Saklatvala. It is good that the world should know
that all anti-Labour governments now are united in hunting down those
who wish to overthrow capitalism. I do not agree with all Saklatvala’s
policies or methods, but I do believe in freedom, and certainly believe in
his ultimate aim, which is the aim of all true socialists, namely, the
overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of Socialism.”
In the US, Senator Borah refused to address the conference, the chief reason
being that he objected to the ban on Saklatvala. The American Civil Liberties
Union held a huge protest meeting in New York to coincide with the arrival of
delegates to the conference.
302
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
MR SAXLATVALA.
PR0TE8T TO CONSUL-
GENERAL
SIR ROBERT HORNE ON
THE BAN.
(By Oar r*r I In mattery OWTWp-it)
. ^ 4#cwnn at 11m Anancto mrMkjori-
to wwfel tV p as yo -ff V t*k Krwted to
Mr Solus", il*.. ih* iVranwa v. xmalw
°" riiMaumi* wan nW*ftlly ct>m-
mi ins rwt cd to lion vwwUv awl to
Mr. F. MmJduon, tin w*'r*f,ary of the
Bntoh bftmrh of Inter (WUftoitfllary
I'lmai, uruW wbc m Asatintt th» Hrihga
tloo, of wtoch Ht. SnUstva'a was to
Mvt bsaa * mambct. Uavs* fur that
I’nttad 8U*«s sod Ca&sd* la-tsuimm.
Mr. Mafctboft at «oce got inxu nocn
rr.imio4Ai.jfi with Colonel Woolcurk «ul
S»r RoMa* Bird, vio had dnelmsd to
wako rhe jaunty h> Kinr am Mr.
NunatvW* maairnd a (imbtr of Os
party, and rwnvsl rspljea irceo thorn
that they wouU mow he pleated to
rmjam ASte -Vkvsfcou.
TV <sm of Obptacs. Peter Macdonald,
MP . ■ snn wifca <liftv«u. Hs sa-
nounood that the peeKa*?* of Mr. Rakiat
w * a Ms itsuua few withdrawing
CfOaa ihndilnjariou. bat ho kail pvwnauaiy
inrimuUd that hosirwsa rcuou prwvauted
niffi frun ivamg to the UiutsJ BtaSw. and
■ g M M V snrrtW UaidCiWt msmbur
rnght be willing to taka ©var his cabin
a»anrni£AKiatiaB^ As the utlnr number
egrasd to do so, Captain will
**"» be e cunnber r.< »iw peril.
Tb" Mtiu of the Amen pen MitfaxiUec
MOOMBded IIhU to moot of (be iDcubhen
cfl t hs AcVgsUun as ths beet way oMt of
Uwunionvntto{Kottinnwhi.h h*J eraon.
Thta fmlinc »'•* nunmi her fW Robert
ll fl ft s , who M to lsad t xm <hlw»Us.
aad who Mad inautad throughmittiiat m
many asmbsi of IMbAaedt as prsMNs
ought in g! I in order to count* the «fT».t
<n any epcenhee that Mr Sek-KTala
nUBht utU Sir Robert eUtad »—
I UUiX UK Ur OiOaultj etlrh nc nM
Vf Mr. haklemU'. because k p k O.
Oial .^lr. K •Kkfle lee K rrrP.rd
th. t—t >-edkk uUnltm. Pp to. «ede? be bee
MR. SAKLATV ALA’S
LETTER
Mr. Suldulvi A. r vteve ere explained
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Clipping: The Times, 18th September 1925
It is interesting to note here the speech which Saklatvala had made when
addressing the Inter-parliamentary Conference in 1923: nothing could have
been more pacific— indeed its sentiments might be expressed by any of our
modern and moderate speakers in defence of today’s Common Market. He had
said:
“The resolutions before the Conference are quite clear and, to put the
matter briefly, they appeal to our sense of fair play and common
brotherhood all over Europe and all over the world. The war-guns
boomed and are silenced... and they have left the world worse than it
was when they began. We have therefore to come round to the position
of everybody playing fairly towards others, the stronger ones helping the
weaker ones, and the weaker ones playing fairly again towards the
stronger ones when they themselves become strong once more. (Hear,
hear!)
“I may be pardoned, Mr President, if I am rather personal, but I speak
with a particular faith in the existence of fair-play and the spirit of
brotherhood. After all, who am I? One of a conquered and vanquished
race, a subject Indian, conquered by another nation. Well, here I am in
this great Conference because of that spirit of fair-play and brotherhood
that does exist in Great Britain and does exist in other parts of Europe.
“Coming from the British section I may say that only the other day Great
Britain signed a treaty with Turkey. Turkey was defeated in war... Great
Britain would like to have a Treaty more advantageous to herself, but
still she did not land soldiers in Constantinople and go forth to conquer,
but followed brotherhood and fair-play, and peace for the future. We
could have done so towards Russia, but still Great Britain refrained, and
I am sure will refrain, from any hostile act against Russia...
“If I may ask you... to hark back to what happened immediately after the
War. I would remind you that our friends from America sat at the
conference table and the other Allies drove the US President to sign a
Peace treaty which, according to his conviction, was against the spirit of
brotherhood and fair-play... that has resulted in driving America away
from the brotherhood of Europe.
“We want America back (applause). We want Germany, Russia, France,
304
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Italy, Belgium, Great Britain all to unite together on a basis of fair-play...
we do not want national victories on our banner now. We want human
good, human equality, and the uplifting of human beings to be the
objects inscribed on our banners now...
“We have got to talk of reparations not in terms of money penalties but
in terms of human happiness and human peace and human gladness,
which is all we want to see upon the earth. When there is peace in
Europe there will be peace in Asia. When there are good relations
between these European nations there will be good relations between
the others...
“We want all countries and all political parties— and I include my friends
the Communists of whom I am one— we want them all to seek the good
of their neighbours and not their downfall. We want Germany to
understand that if France is suffering from devastation and injustice,
Germany has proved herself a bad neighbour; we want France to
understand that if Germany is steeped in misery and poverty and
injustice, France is a bad neighbour. We do not want our own homes to
be in bad order, or the homes of our neighbours, but we want an era of
peace and full confidence and brotherhood and fair-play, and this will
not be realised by reparations. (Applause.)”
Certainly nothing Saklatvala said at that conference could justify his being
denied access to the IPU conference of 1925.
[Editor’s note: In July 1926, Saklatvala sent the following cablegram to
President Coolidge, as reported by the International Herald Tribune:
“Congratulations on 150 years of national freedom and social progress. Your
nation must feel thankful there were no Kelloggs with Immigration Acts then
to ban George Washington and other revolutionary spirits from entering the
country.”].
It was during all the hullabaloo over the ban on Saklatvala’s admission to the
States that he resigned officially from Tata. His brother, Sorab, came to
England for the first and only time that year, largely to bring pressure to bear
on Father, whose widely proclaimed communism was proving an
embarrassment to the capitalist firm. He and his wife, Auntie Mehri and
three-year old daughter, Rhoda, stayed in the Cecil Hotel. Rhoda was
accompanied by her Nanny, a concept of family life entirely new to me. I was
305
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
overwhelmed with pity for her, since it seemed to my six year-old mind, that
she was closer to the Nanny than to her Mother. I clung to my mother like a
limpet during the whole of their stay.
Father’s letter of resignation was addressed to Tata Ltd in London and read:
“Dear Sirs, I may briefly state that I have been studying the recent trend
of events arising out of my political activities and views. I candidly
admit that at the present juncture one’s political obligations require at
times a somewhat uncompromising stand, irrespective of ones personal
interests. In my case, I realise, that with the prominence of your office
as an outstanding East India House, and with my relationship with the
leading members of the firm in Bombay, this sacrifice does not, and will
not, stop at a voluntary surrender of my personal advantages, but it may
unjustly operate as an unnecessary and unjustifiable harm to others and
to the firm’s standing in commercial banking circles. Such criticism may
be uncharitable now and yet it may grow day by day. Therefore, after a
full and calm consideration of the question, with the benefits of
consultation with my brother in London, I have decided to offer my
resignation from your firm as Manager of the Cotton Mills Department,
as I can do so without inconvenience to you with your preparation made
ready for my absence in America.
“In this step I assure you of the inseparable good will on my part
towards all the members of the firm, and I am sure of the continuance of
the same on their part...”
Interviewed by a Sunday Worker representative, he said he did not regret the
step: “My services in the cause of the struggling workers... will now be able to
command my fuller attention.”
306
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
MR. SAKLATVALA
VISA REVOKED BY
U.S.A.
Waaaiaurcui, Sapt- IS. — Mr. Ktlfugg.
the Hecrntory of Stale, aiuiDimnee llt&t bi-
Htructiofis have been telegraphed to
London to revoke the piwsport vista granted
to Mr, S*t )h.1v- » la M.P_ because of in-
I fla mm at n ry revolutionary speech** in
Parliament ai>d elsewhere.
( “ I do not believe w Mr. Kellogg added,
I '* that we should admit foreigners to the
country to preach anarchy. — fteuler.
RESIGNATION FROM
MESSRS. TATA.
We aro officially informed by
Tata, Limited, that Mr. KakfetvaU. M.P..
yesrarday metgjied hia position as a
departmental manager in the firm, Hia
1 maipvation was conveyed to tlie firm in
\ tiro following letter : —
tf, New B rout -street. Lotwloo, E.C..
S*pt. I«, 1*85.
Kwen. Tata, Limited. 68, New Breed-
Unit. B.C.
Lear Ssrs.—I may bfiefiy state that I have
b***n ufodying the reeeut tomd ot Inal!
ariuna out of my politico! ocUviUwi acd vWw>.
I amuidly admit that at the |,nwn! Juncture
On»'» pofitkal obUgntioea require at timm a
imroewhat uooamproiabang stand, irre-
spective of one'* punmsJ interest ». I a tar
«um I Ktallxc that with the prominence of
J o«r office a* an outstanding Fast India
oumi. and with my reiatlocuhip wttli Um
leading member* of Uiu Onn ia Bombay. »>■;. j
aacrifkoa dlxc a on*. and will not. stop at a
voluntary suzrende? of my pcr*n* 4 *| ad-
vantage*. bat tt may up j«wt ty opw*t« mt
an vaiwoouary and unjustifiable harm to
<ithac« and to the nrm's standing in coin-
marrJal and hanking circles. Such cntlclwn
may ho uncharitable ww and yet it. mar
grow day by day, Therefore after a full unil
caim coosiderattan of the quretraa, with the
ban-file of t-onauHation with my brother ia
L ocolon. I liavu decided to offt* «ny rwdglta-
tion from your firm as the manager of the
cotton m.il!« department, at I an do so with-
out inconvenience to you with your prepara-
tions made ready for my aba-nee in Amuri co-
in Ibie etap I annire you of the huwjurablo I
good *:u osi my part Inwards all the u.-mbwe
of tba Otm. amt I am sure of the continuance
| of the eamu on their port.
Yours fait I, fully.
(3d. I Mbati tui iJ.tCi*TV*TJt.
Clipping: The Times, 17th September 1925
On 25th May 1925, the Home Secretary had announced to the House that
certain delegates from Germany who intended to attend the annual conference
of the Communist Party of Great Britain to be held in Glasgow, had been
refused permission to enter the country for this purpose. There was a lively
debate initiated by Jimmy Maxton, claiming that the conference of the
Communist Party was a perfectly legal and bona fide event and that to exclude
these fraternal delegates from the country was a denial of the rights of free
speech. Maxton was supported by several other members on the Labour
307
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
benches and during the course of the debate, it was claimed that German and
British members of the employing class were getting together and making
agreements, so members of the working class of both countries should also be
allowed to come together under the auspices of a legally constituted political
Party.
Ifte l'i£lu«ioa at Mr. Suldaiyala.
7 W vntteitlim Mil Shattoji ftitum-Au
It) CC&Hnf.itny »f-< Ebitbd* " ddtgalion "• to Um
I nto l’*/li*m»nL».-y CcedttuuM at WuMuaUai
ia* h**n fautMMd hy (hs Gavttnrowii <d tho
Uc-tae! Scalx** AiWr • wtlttitlOi wi (h
»«vt CccraiiiE Ms, Kautu, th» dcmcfo/y <d
Stat*. teiuecnawd that iuiin*>ti-r», had bum
otfcioJ lu lit* A^xjozom < <m,ul n r owthunliw.
in Lhii nirmtfy ta fwiul tho j‘ — ■ - • 1 i(id
panted to Uw <bmmmii»t UP, lor
No/li Bi.ur».» Thi» Bitco had tn*t_ taton
oa aoxuM. of Mx SJuru-n au's iidLunmnimy
al ..«fcrs, in fufiuan t and «U*rwlMff. Would
Ui tranipantd who- in knowu tu hold •nt»Tfr-
*iva nr rwroJub-iUxrv rim*,, to cwny co props
aanda hwoito to Ainsiwi poliiioil iricirntMas,
am Mtctadod twin th* Dnkui Klutro ; m>t Ha.
Kfa. n jnQ fn inatmj tha opmiuu this in Ihji :itt.
nd other ounw mu c« ltiXLmo, with tho Anuui-
f «D ltoto%r*tnn I an Thungf S&U 1 U fiiVUM
hi* tnlidxd thu ulhdal drr.-es,n 111 impolitic,
il carrot so UtlyrwH cc Le»il tjnwfe. Jin.
Rkuooo uaWiiI might oil] rvtnrt that be
wotiW tnihiir «xii'.xn on motor of nn:h notorioti)
rotompteux* U rg*»ro h n Mx Sinnri-.
than bu oea i jailed to deport Mm
£Uocu Mx ‘Uri.vcvala find combmed finn-
C.;:iirt TVlIameutarj aotiTicy In (hi* iinnmy
wit) tho n-niicrnrrr p ol a dmwtnwnt c i a
grtnt Indian mpirslilt heufio wldlh hr Hie Ju»t
xsirtuaj, ha ho* dcilVtovd a nnrahar ol l|m>Ja>
which tolly merit the dwripbca -zt *uhv»r*iv*
*nd trvohitouiry. 'A*n svav xw nano to
ninioee that Lu nHnmnow would b* 1 m ! :wd
ir. tha Sto Worhl C an in tin Old. FwJuc.
KtoJ, in yjiiln u( th* ira«r_mU daitripnrQ ot
tbt litilidi Pnrliamtoitrv group who baivn lur
Ui* Timtod Staler and Canada in- marrow mu a
"dtlantrn," lea mcrohui bni no rflfcjd to
mjmmantaJtrva otohiiht wbitr/rr, Toe . . .... 1 ...
ic*? Xnrth Ksdcwii npnwctr oeitbee tho
Br.ttnj Cove t nmiw i tier |bi Uonoae al Uumnnin
Any member at P*r}i«=n»n( o»jr >ton tha onirr
and atuod !*• n.Tnf*renr«, An din Htnor
i.*U?l*mHnni«irii goloCd out ae Irwg «go
Ol 10 OB, 11m etcJenrof nf tho LtUv-Farliun ir-.
ary fnicc in an unofficial gulJtftfirg. ’ihc
r-Af.-xty o> three «bo *u*ud is and all jla
Briuh memhera aev hot um.V’bd .Jeltaaim uf
any I'tttlinmiul or nF *iry rirrhllDQTiLily ^ariy-
l\lDtt u£ it# charaater would Lo'.m
tcwenWI none htliln cnllowm ci tho Go vitn-
munt and o< Partuunrcs Fnr " pmnlttiOE " a rmm-
tu. inn aiy Cuaimuiiiii 4o aoeempony ,-Jirc
tnoiilao nl Padiamsnt to IVaihington, lho
auarion ot " poreninkjc " Aum not mk. II
Mx iSurATTAu. ho apila ui tl:* itrrrot al aw
American tin), ln idi nd on eenbaxkltig ua a
LtriDai idGip iaiuiid to N'rv \orjc, ttm (hvan*
SMiit rirald rjil jirermt ham, as long an lh>
nmintry remained it puox w>Ji die Uerted
btaiei. hpafiy Ilia inanbimliiy ol the i‘rjLiCi
liynidaltoi wiiidd give him no right to land ki
d.liWKi ui iha dBarieit. Immagraton Low.
lu liplaini.-g why the Amefioan aiaa w*a
uriktoillly ptanlad to Mr. HictArriU etaju
granmi hMtnxjtiom to admit the <Adn«*.t>« nf
all ansowirw atumdlrg the Intst , PaeUauuurary
Union, Mn, Kkowi dii* iliMitiui to wa of
Lxi Kitnt fpecehoa which had mjy jog acoo
to tbc howhdig ui tin DipartaoaRt. ViMlhet
i» »i> i»rC wdviiwl in pnyiug (hem ('*■« oomptb-
mrnt tit ipattaHon i* hHjhttiil. thoagb tt*0 klinul
Iriendiy rrmtinsHcc ot Mo. P sc ITWII.I'.I inur
of rergpariort to Mntns. Txu [whioi. m
priLuibod in Tho Trtuvr ui yia(«r4a^*l tnigiir
ulLuredto SUioaool that thaw ii MtmaUtir.g td the
** jiaainnr Bnhiaviii " in da M.T 1 . tor X-.etli
ISartmea. It in certa&ly lutprliittu to £md m
utlvanMd Connounllt ft wnmin *11 tin urnW.
ui * capitalist him cl Ui* " ccMpinlt I r good
“ will." Ihittielilh U* ha* had bie tdvoitiie
ir-ent- Hia airopW. «l th* memhccs of Cl)
Br.Uih group who declined to viaii the
United friar** and Canada m tin caiiij-aity
rood trouble them no ui;m, and many cd
theta will daubtlut 1 til ilm tW artVw. nf the
dtade Uefnrtmeftt haa pnihaniy mid them from
dm duty ui hluriiic^ «;rd apnlcgisrnj Jet hti ton-
rvprovnCalivn mtraRrogwrrees. Unit puinU litilr-
ovft, in Mx IkEtxoon'a talm* ui dw
•tiwli action dttttvt* eumactiun. Me iprwhi or
Mx f iA i i t jL r vXiA end agitatcct al tm t> p. a*
lUj-f.irlan. lA at.jnhy. iiut is. Kuwlo, whx-a
Clipping: The Times, 18th September 1925
The Home Secretary, Joynson-Hicks, said that the policy had always been to
afford free speech to our own nationals but not necessarily to foreigners: “I say
frankly that we have a right, as an imperial government, to prevent these men
coming in for destructive purposes... they [the government] do object to
having Communist Party doctrines enlarged, improved and spread by
agitators from abroad...”
308
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
To which Saklatvala replied: “On the same democratic principle, would
Indians also have the right to say by a majority that no Englishmen should
enter their country; or would the Chinese have the right to say that no
Christian missionaries should enter their country?”
Joynson-Hicks said sarcastically, “I had not noticed that the Communist Party
had arrived. It is perfectly clear that wherever, in any country, there is a
democratic House of Commons and a democratic government, that
government has the right to do what it considers to be in the best interests of
its people.”
TITE REVOKED VISA.
MR. KELLOGG’S REASONS.
(non ova ovrw cuaunoiiDm >
WASHINGTON. Kbit 17.
TTm decision to revolt* tie passport
rise of Mr. SskJttvik >noDuiu«a by the
Secretary of State, Mr. Kellogg. Mat ‘night
has aroused none cnriaam in the United
State*. Senator Borah, who has dwaiased
the question with Mr. Kellogg, has painted
out that any utterance* here of that dele
gate to thus inter-PartianMutury Union
would hardly have been as dangoroiw u*
the publicity given to him by refusing
him admis&m to the United State*,
and the recent case of Count Karotyi,
who observed hie vow of silenco in the
United States, only to crow the Canadian
border kkI ay elf that ha wished to ay,
will (support this Oocitentim. There i*
also an apparent lack of official eon.
■fctaiicy in the fact tlsat the Russian
Soviet* maintain an office and publish
a " Trade Review ” in Washington with
out iote ii fe c aade from the authorities.
It is not eomaasteooy that the State
Department tecta, however, a* much as
that prevention which is better than
cun* Mr. KsUqg* would rather refuse
admission to Mr/bsklatvala than later
find himself furred to mart to de-
portation, and if he is correct in the
assumption that the Battersea mma-
ber'i mtomperaooo of 8 pooch could be
counted on to hiring rum into con-
flict with American law. he has probably
talon the least troublaaosna course.
The Secretary of State's raniii>der that
Mr. S»k(«l v»la “ ia not ippointai by
the British Government, nor selected by
any authority of the British Govern-
ment " and his conclusion chat thorn is
accordingly “no reuaon why be should
be con*id«v*d esesupt from the inunigra
teon law, any met* than the humblest
immigrant who bolds subversive or
revolutionary vferw*,“ is sufficient
indication that, no proteat is expected
from cho Bnuah Foreign Ofboe.
Clipping: The Times, 18th September 1925
Saklatvala asked him, “Do the government make the democracy, or do the
309
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
people of the country make the democracy?”
Joynson-Hicks explained, “The government is the expression of the views of
the people of a democratic country,” to which Saklatvala rejoined, “In
conquered countries would the government have the right to express the views
of the people? Were the Germans expressing the views of the Belgian people
during the occupation? If the Russians conquered England would they be
expressing your feelings?”
This debate on the exclusion of the German delegates to Scotland throws some
light on the feelings engendered by the later exclusion of Saklatvala from the
United States of America. Saklatvala and Joynson-Hicks were often to cross
swords in the House, and Joynson-Hicks was one of only a few members who
showed a personal animosity towards the Communist member; he was to
make it patently clear the following year.
JTIf, SAKI.ATVALA AND HIS
PROPAGAN DA.
Mr. N \ k utvau, Communist M.P. for North
Import i«M k* n member of
tb» British grrap to the ConfimiKe of the
Inter- r*trtUn>mt«jy Uukm io Washington
k„ rooked b 5 lir. Kellogg, the Amiran
»dilrM«iida protest mortlc*
at Uattcnwn Town Ball last night. He said
Amenta van giving a royal reception to
lory ocmoorj representing the cs.iiita.lurt
poww of Great Britain, who hod coon there
{“ * a * A ™L ln «***•- They were the glorious
herein who were going to my. ** We are th-
English-speaking motherhood." But (her
to* i«*o a “ blue funk, ' foe they know
that if b« had carried cm his propaganda in
AnietVv they could not stand up and far* i»
Therefore they intrigued, plotted, and Bed.
bet never eamu out in the open agalnat him
io Great Britain. Ho concluded by saying
**•* P***"™*' *»» that be
had bcce deprived of the opportunity of
meeting his two brothers, who were good
ciUrens of America, bat foe the rent be had
nciUtcr regret, dismay, or driappotnu-uen;.
A resolution of confidence in Mr, SaiMvoln
and deploring America's poJicy of banning
h» entry am a delegate to the Washington
conference was carried.
In reply t«> questions, Mr. SAg|.aTVtu a
said l»e would go to Amurlra stilt IT invited,
and added : ' I have written to America
penciling 1 hat If I went I would tint preach
anarchy, but I would espooe the conspiracy
of the capitalist ruling clnsn." 1 1
Clipping: The Times, 21st September 1925
During the course of one debate, George Lansbury took exception to a remark
made by Austen Chamberlain, relating to Saklatvala not being a native of
Great Britain, and called for a withdrawal of the remark. In complaining to the
Speaker, Lansbury claimed, “Another hon member has insulted one of the
best-living men in this or any other country...”
Chamberlain assured the House, “What I thought was a perfectly innocent
310
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
remark has aroused a good deal of criticism. I beg, through you, Sir, to assure
the hon member that I meant nothing insulting.” The remark in question—
which he was never allowed to complete— began, “When the hon member
knows this country more intimately...”
In a reply published in the Sunday Worker, Saklatvala said:
“...throughout these 19 years [the period of his stay in Britain] I have not
spared myself in studying the conditions, troubles, temperament and
needs of the working class, for whom alone I am concerned. Against one
Chamberlain, I have the voice of 15,000 British workers in Battersea,
and during my visits to the provinces for communist propaganda I have
reason to know that there are as many thousands elsewhere who know
that I have a far more intimate knowledge of the conditions and needs of
the workers of Britain than ever Mr Austen Chamberlain will be able to
possess.”
In the course of a parliamentary debate on the Poor Law in Scotland,
Saklatvala made an amusing comment on the system of voting in the House:
“I rise to support the amendment. In doing so I fully realise that I am
not supporting a cause which is going to win in the lobbies. It was only
on Tuesday night that the followers of the government had been weeded
out of what little conscience they had, and since then they had not had
sufficient time to recover. It is just as easy for them to support their
leaders whether they are right or wrong. I am perfectly sure that the
reclining figure on the back bench will become perpendicular when the
Division comes and that he will vote for the government.”
311
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
ITALIAN FACTION FIGHTS
IN NEW YORK.
I™" owk conrawosrDicrr.)
NEW YORK. Sift. w.
Tho arrival at nine Italian delegoboi
to tlw Inter Parliamentary Canfefraro
in the liner Duilio provoked a rlnoh
hdweai New York FoMusti Com-
munists and other Radicals.
In proto* partly against Fonuiarno
aod partly against Mr. £aldaU«U'»
exclusion tho extremists had impanel a
denicoatration on tho wharf. At the
request of the Italian Amhaesodor, the
authorities liad provided adequate police
protection for the arriving delegatee, who
were whisked away to hotels by taxi
eahe from the Lower Pier while the polio*
were mdeavourinc to prevent a riot
between the rival crowds outside (be
entrauue to tbo Upper Pier.
Two Italians ware tUghtly wounded
when an unidentified lucmbar ot the Anti-
Fascist Party fin»| seven shots into the
Fascist denioneUatora. Th* polk* buer
diBpflrsed dnnoratrAtMn.i against tho
Fascist headquarters anil (he H*ra Hotel,
where (bo Italian Ambassador i* staying
A second attempt to Btcgc a Communist
demon* trat loci wae mads this morning,
when the Ounaftl Hner Caroma arrived
with the delegates of Great Britain.
” Red* " marched to the wharf, empty
the “ International ’ f and carrying bonnwit
iaambed “ Sakletvala ia the friend of
Labour. The British delegates are
organised Labour's envemw*. But, a
large police foroe wae awaiting the demon-
strators, who spoedilv dieporood.
The League of Xations Association
entertained all the delegations at luncheon
to day.
Clipping: The Times, 29th September 1925
Also in lighter vein, he intervened humorously in an exchange between
Captain Wedgwood Benn and Joynson- Hicks. Wedgwood Benn asked the
Home Secretary what general rules governed the attendance of secret police at
meetings; on what subjects were they asked to report; and whether they were
employed to register in general opinions expressed, or whether their duties
were limited to the prevention of crime and of the advocacy of crime? On
getting an evasive reply, Wedgwood Benn pressed his point. Joynson-Hicks
then said that the object of police attendance was to inform him of what takes
place, “...and if there are revolutionary sentiments or revolutionary projects
discussed at that meeting...”
Saklatvala rose to ask the innocent question, “Will the Rt. hon gentleman say if
police duties also include attendance at dinner parties where revolutionary
talk may be going on, and if that is extended to the private dining rooms of the
House of Commons, where I hold dinners with my revolutionary friends on
312
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
occasions?”
During one debate taking place very late at night, Saklatvala said, “I hope I will
not be charged with an attempt to keep hon members opposite up— because it
is my honest desire to keep them down!”
AMERICAN METHOD WITH
COMMUNISTS.
COL WOODCOCK. M.P.. ON HIS
VISIT.
Coionol Woodcock. M.P.. who arrived at
Liverpool on Saturday. after attending live
conference at Washington of tfce Inter Par-
liamentary Union. mid h» wan convinced
•Hat thu action be took in preventing Mr.
.Saklatvala, I ho < 'omnuunM M.P., from goiznr
to America would ban far reaching rvwultT
“ TTie prominence mv action gave in drawing
attention to tbu activitiea of Comm unlit*, '•
be went on, “ bus not only given a laid to (hi*
country and America, but other couxitrwa are
mow apt to foflow our action in dealing with
thi* menace. The revolt mvxt be to pat hack
the growth of their dwtructlTC fort«) for many
youa to come. The United states are very
much alive to Uiix menace. Their methods
are much more forceful than ours. Wc had
evidenen of thin when wt arrived in New
York. When we tender] there was a
demoantratton of about 400 p«>|>|e to nro-
trat a«al net the esrluMiun of Nr Saklatvala.
Thl« crowd war mtiiprmaed by police, who wen.
supported by eoWier* and a equad of bombers.
Everywhere 1 went I was ocmpUnimted for
preventing Mr. Hailatval. going to America.
The promulgation of Oomnuinlst doctrine* M
being dealt with firmly and promptly. A
conversation I bad with Mr. Davit, Mtcmtary
lor Labour in the United State*, convinced
me that that country m giving a lend to other
oooii torn In the exclusion and detMirtation of
CoB u n u n hda. Many alieoa, kitMmbers of the
Communist party of America, hare been
deported, and are boirg deported whenever
tbetr prmepoe in that country comes to Uiu
notice of the Immigration authorities.
Clipping: The Times, 26th October 1925
In spite of personal attacks and disappointments, Saklatvala never lost his
sense of humour— he saw many of the flaws of imperial society, its pomposity,
its double standards, its claim to its own freedom, while denying freedom to
more than half the world, as ludicrous as well as wicked— and laughter, even
when silent, is a great booster of morale.
313
CHAPTER 16
A Subversive in Parliament
Parliamentary speech on British rule in India and on
imperialism in general, 1925.
On 9th July 1925, under the Chairmanship of James Hope, the House of
Commons debated the estimates for expenditure on the India Office, which
gave Saklatvala the opportunity to express in the House his views on the
government of India by Great Britain and on imperialism in general. His
speech that night sums up much of his thinking on this subject, which was
central to all his political thought. I therefore quote it here at length:
“I am thankful to the noble Lord that towards the close of his speech he
told the Committee that I am bound to take a different view from both
Front Benches, who are more or less alike in their policy and their
outlook on Indian affairs...
THE COAL SUBSIDY.
On tli* report «! the Vote lor £10.000,000 In
•td of in tli* cooltniniikc radartry
(which wm carried in Commute* tout night).
Sir. SAKLATVALA (Battersea, N., Cam.)
urged that the inquiry by the Commission
should include the atato ot the coal Industry
in other parts of the British Empire, where
British routers were employing labour at is.
a week.
Clipping: The Times, 8th August 1925
“What I say here is not in any mood of anger or hatred, but positively
with a view to speaking the truth, when sometimes truth, though
unpleasant, is ultimately better than diplomatic statesmanship and
political thought. I pay homage to the British spirit of hypocritical
statesmanship. It is a wonderful sight today. We are talking of the
Indian Empire just in the same strain of common agreement, with that
very placid attitude of mind and phraseology of speech as if we were
discussing some matters relating to the renewal of furniture in the
library or cooking utensils in the kitchen of the House of Commons.”
At this point, notice was taken that there were less than 40 members present—
thereby proving Father’s point that little importance was attached to Indian
314
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
affairs in the minds of the British members of Parliament who were
responsible for the government of the country. More members were brought
in to enable the debate to continue. (When members of the public are critical
of MPs for poor attendances in the House, it is often put forward that many of
them are busy in Committee Rooms; but it is not surprising if the electorate
sometimes form the opinion that the bar is more popular than the debating
chamber.)
“I am thankful to the hon member for getting me a bigger audience. I
assure the Committee that my whole object in taking the line I do is to
place before the Committee, as well as before the country, not only the
Communist Party point of view, but the general international point of
view, the overlooking of which in the near future is going to bring
serious calamity to many European countries, and especially to Great
Britain.
“We are debating here as if the Bengal Ordinances were never
promulgated [Editor’s note: The Bengal Criminal Law amendment
Ordinance, 1924, instituted special courts and dispensed with habeus
corpus in an attempt to suppress dissent], as if the shooting of Bombay
operatives during the cotton strike had never taken place [Editor’s note:
Five protestors were killed by police on March 7th 1924], as if a great
strike of thousands of railway workers is not even now going on in the
Punjab, with men starving and the government, the controller of those
railways, taking up a hard-faced attitude, as if all these things had not
happened, as if a great controversy is not raging, not only with the
people of India but with the people all over the world, whether British
Imperialism, whatever its past history, is at all permissible to exist now
for the benefit of the citizens of Great Britain herself.
“There are great problems pertaining to India and Britain which ought
to have been discussed on an afternoon like this. I agree that the
commonness of parties and the commonness of policy between the last
government and the present government has tabooed all these
important questions from being uttered in the House. The main
question with which we are confronted is the entire question of
Imperialism in its present form.
“It is rather unfortunate that from the earliest time you have called this
315
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
agglomeration of different people and different races the British
Empire. I wish you had from the first designated it as the Indo-British
Empire, so that what we may say about the Indian subjects in the
Empire may not be taken as a reflection by our Colonial friends in
Canada, Australia and elsewhere.
“The conditions are entirely different. Rules and regulations, formulae,
political remedies and experiences which apply to that part of the
British Empire which is composed of Great Britain and her white
Colonies are not at all applicable to the other portions of the Empire,
such as India and certain portions of China and Africa...
“I do not take the view that there are progressive ways of self-
government, of Dominion Home Rule, of Indianisation of the Army and
all those things just as there are certain progressive measures for
cultivating apples in Canada, cattle markets in Australia and bringing
the fruit and meat to this country from the distant parts of the Empire. I
take the view of the reality of life, that if genuine self-rule is in the hands
of the Indians and if there exists a genuine Indianisation of the Indian
Army, no Indian will be so despicable, as to say that they would hold
that country and that Army for the benefit of some people other than
their own...
“Take the problem as a human problem. India is a large country with a
population of over 300,000,000. You talk of 10% of the people being
educated today. That 10% in that large country represents 30,000,000
people, and you admit that these 30,000,000 people— which means a
much larger population than many other smaller European countries—
are educated and as fit as other similarly educated persons in several
parts of Europe.
316
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
LIBERAL C1MPAIOX
BATTERSEA,
IX
A lore” fti>1 lirting wrw liolil »t KitUnr*
“‘JP* •“ ***1*1 ’** * M»- H»M«t
Xtotioto *n.t Mr. Vine it C- Alba, |/w. H »ntlvo
Ui»r«.l rmdUata, for X«rtB bo4 Kovtfi
ButU-nm. ThoaRlt It w*» oULnl lfa*|, the
K»cr.1.!!tx t*a r .0 omnetirtn with the more*
rnent to urewtt the [wnt member. It w«
« Mieot tbBt it lerwc KUBihc* or bh> .uj.pwiw*
were pTRienf. fVlertlon* ptoved c* the
re*tn b.rliet«t " .toha Brown* llody,'' end
n parody, tab, rote, vote foe StkLtUth. '
vu idumled hy o Urge pro portion of the
Attillc«u»i Tbra* ueve aofii* intomipCiofi*,
MS. » h “ , ° •«* ‘P-akrw hod otoir
heortn*. TJie CiixataiiN lNr . T .
tna orpUuded trbrn he mid, " Ifativnoo.
want* b policy with « fuu*. with b kick,
*£“• * ■"■** .** hot. la.ifhtrr
Weetod hb stUUioral. Hot the only rc v nfcu
tuMir Hr w “ «*» f^hetiBl Pony. Mr.
f®*** M.P .etoted t.W he W!W, M
in fra ftpe*ch« iitul «tid oot :ti>provt of tc+
Clipping: The Times, 22nd September 1925
“Then you style yourselves the trustees of the whole of India, and as
trustees you take jolly good care to see that the other 280,000,000
remain ignorant, illiterate, uneducated with no freedom to call their
souls their own... because Great Britain, to suit her own purpose, treats
those 280,000,000 persons as so many animals or beasts of burden...
“Is there a single British man or woman today, is there a person
anywhere in any country in Europe, in any of the backward countries in
the Balkan states, in any of the small nations which are not yet so fully
developed as Great Britain, who would tolerate for one day a power so
despotic and arbitrary as the Crown, under the Imperial system, is
insisting upon enjoying in India? There would not be a man or woman
who tomorrow would not rise and fight to the bitter end to claim their
rights if the monarchy claimed one tenth of the privileges which in the
name of the Crown are exercised over the people of India. Because you
keep the other 280,000,000 people back, you are asking the 30 or 40
million of educated people there also to swallow such an indignity and
such an impossibility in public life.
“...Human feeling, the human heart and the human mind are just the
same in India as here or elsewhere. You call the Indians seditious when
they protest against these things, but when you rise in revolt in this
country against the ruling classes, it is called the spirit of democracy. In
India, it is sedition, conspiracy, subversive propaganda...
“I put it to my Indian friends that no sensible persons expect them to
317
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
submit to such an unnatural state of mind and to such hypocritical
expressions in their speeches. They are fully entitled to strain every
nerve to carry on what is called seditious propaganda, what is called a
revolutionary movement, and to fight with all their might and main
such iniquitous and unjust and brutal privileges as are claimed by the
Crown, through their Agents, in India. It is perfectly right. You would all
do it. No one doing it in this country would be condemned for doing it...
A» * pretMt agairnt the action of the
WaghrtrxMe m henmon Mr. b-'Llkt
v&je* Cocneranist znottixc. the J^ebcor croup
ill tlie Citv Cnn-n-il have lecoirvmeiMted the
mrrrSna of Uw Latoor Party to abftain Inai
attending any of tlie ceremonle* oonnn-trxt
wiili Mr. RaMwIn't visit to f.laxeow next seek.
TIk* Prune Ntnilrtxc M to reeelxo the modem
of the <rty. an4 the Lftfcxur gixip muert that
tt wniild tio a tteirkery lix- them to he txvecnt
trixfl ftoadom of opeaefe ta dctiod to Lobotir
organitetjiwit in OlaAgoor
Clipping: The Times, 25th September 1925
“...The noble Lord [Earl Winterton], if he will forgive me for saying so,
stood up in a school-boyish fashion, and referred us to the lessons of
history for the last 700 years. As I read English history for the last 700
years, it is a more ignominious record than ours. He says, ‘You have
always had a foreign monarch, always an invader coming in from
outside to rule you.’ Since my childhood days, when I was studying
English history, I have known that England so far never has had an
English monarch. She has always had a foreign invader. Never has her
monarchy been a home-grown product. Monarchy is a sort of family
privilege. A few families supply monarchs to Europe just as a few biscuit
factories supply biscuits all over Europe...
“I am simply showing the want of logic in the position he [Winterton]
took up in reproaching India as a country which was always governed by
a foreign monarch, and thereby trying to establish the right of himself
and his family and future generations, to go on governing India...
“It was entirely a futile argument, and if you go back 200 years, your
education, your sanitation, and internal arrangements, with Bishops
burning people, and the persecution and religious terrorism, you have
nothing much to be proud of. You had your struggles and we have ours,
and shall still have them. I put it to the noble Lord as well as to his own
Party, not to take the narrow-minded, schoolboyish view of life when
talking of the biggest affairs of mankind.
318
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
“...We want to put it to you that you are talking in contradictory terms.
Sometimes one thing is right and at another moment it is wrong. If you
decide to go to India and revolutionise the lives of the Eastern people,
you do not talk of castes, you do not talk of Hindu and Mohammedan
ideas, or of depressed classes. When it is your intention to start cotton
factories, jute factories, railways and telegraphs, you do not say, ‘We
cannot do it, because India is cut up by caste or because of Hindu and
Mohammedan hatreds, or because there are depressed classes.’
“With just the same ease, comfort and confidence with which you start
these machines for grinding human life and freedom here, you start
factories, mines, railroads and dockyards there. Nothing stands in your
way then. But when we tell you, ‘See here, you pay so much a head here
—(not that you pay willingly for it— it was extorted by the workers
fighting inch by inch against you)— and we say to you that if you apply
these modern instruments of production... you must also apply other
conditions...
“...Then you begin to talk of castes, of Hindus and Mohammedans and
the depressed classes... I put it to you that it is a very cowardly game. I
do not impeach your intention, but I do impeach your habit of mind. It
is a very crooked habit of mind. If you were setting the Indian worker
the same equal race with his employer that you have in this country,
your argument might be at least logical, even if it were not
humanitarian.
“But here you have a fully developed master class, who with their
struggle for a hundred years with the working classes in Europe are
experienced, well-informed and well equipped with all the methods of
enslaving and grinding down human life. That ready-made master...
goes to India, to Bengal, Bombay or somewhere else, and pitches his
camp there, and applies his up-to-date knowledge and his full blast
methods of controlling labour and grinding down human beings. His
informed mind, well equipped with experience, devises schemes.
“The government from time to time say, ‘We are the trustees of the
people, protectors of the undefended.’ Where are you when it comes to
defending the people against the robbers of your own country? ...Two
years ago, when our Indian friends wanted to hold a Trade Union
319
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Congress in the mining area, to draw the attention of the whole country
to the most hideous and the most brutal conditions prevailing in the
Bengal mines, the Merchants’ Association, the European Mine Owners’
Association, asked the government to stop the Congress.
“They demanded the presence of a Ghurka Regiment. Machine guns and
soldiers, with bayonets ready, were in the mining areas. That is the part
they played in granting the rights of the workers. When these tactics did
not succeed, and when the Indians who devoted themselves to work on
behalf of the miners, showed their determination and were backed up by
50 or 60 thousand miners laying down their tools and attending the
Congress, the Chairman of the Miners’ Association wrote a letter of
apology and presented himself and said he would now agree.
“I appeal to my British friends that if they are so proud of being
Britishers, let them remain Britishers when they go abroad. If they want
to take credit for everything that somebody else does and refuse to take
discredit for everything they neglect to do, the least I can say is that they
are a very funny people...
“The noble Lord, the under-secretary [Earl Winterton] has entirely
evaded the issue of the Bengal Ordinances, seditious movements,
suppression of the Communists, and so forth. I plead guilty that I am at
the bottom of many of the Communist manifestoes and Communist
propaganda in India. I am not ashamed of it, and I say that my work is a
hundred times more humanitarian than the work of all your
missionaries and merchants taken together. Why are you taking this
bigoted, narrow-minded view of life?...
BATTERS!! A AXD MR. SAK/.ATTALA
Battersea Borough Council last night eoe-
sidarad petitions, sagn*l lijr *.171 inhabitants,
protesting against the “ disloyal and rero
lutioru.IT utteraaoee " of Mr. Sofclatvahb 1IJ>.
tea North Bsttinxs, sating Uial the people
of Battenaa should bo tailed together ti>
daunts* the matter, ted requesting that ha be
refused the use of the Town Ball or any public
buildings for meetings at which to (Inseminate
such utterances. Mr. WrrFi*u» proposed that
the pvtilsanm be allowed llse Kiae m....
Baths t er a town's meeting at an early data.
Mr. PovEtt, supporting, said they of Use
Labour Party desired that the fotitioom
should have as fair a hearing ea Mr. Hid. Utvafa.
It was ultimately agreed that the f-titiooers
should have a meeting at the Town Hall, if
pcasihW, or in the Kins Elms or Latchnutrn
Clipping: The Times, 1st October 1925
320
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
“It is alleged that whatever is said in this House travels abroad and
creates misunderstanding. Why be afraid of the truth being known
abroad? I, as a Communist, as a true believer in Internationalism, do
not speak with the intention of offending, but with the intention of
giving a shock to your mentality, so that you can think in terms of
humanity instead of in terms of banking accounts and profits.
“You say you are the trustees of the people. You have had 150 years and
today you say you cannot give the franchise to the agricultural
population; you tell hon and Rt. hon members of this House that they
do not know the conditions in India, that the education of the villager in
India is impossible and that they are not to think that the population of
India is like the population of Great Britain.
“It may be that you are honest incompetents, and that you say this in
your impotence and incapacity, but why not learn from others? Our
Russian Bolshevist friends have, in five years time, been able to give the
political franchise to the agriculturists of Russia, who are a class parallel
with the agriculturist population of India. They are also people of
diverse religions, including Mohammedans, Jews, Greeks, Church
people and others.
“The Bolshevists have been able to give them education in 5 years, yet in
the Tsar’s days, these people were treated with the same callousness and
brutal cruelty as that with which you have been treating the Indian
peasant for 150 years. In 5 years after the Communist international
revolution in Russia, 65% of the agricultural population have received
education, and you have, today, the testimony of half-a-dozen British
men and women that, in spite of blood-curdling articles in your
newspapers, the Russians have done their job well. Why play a dog-in-
the-manger part?
“I appeal to this Committee to allow a commission of Indians to go to
Russia to study and to find what the British have failed to discover— the
way of granting to the people political franchise and education, scientific
laboratories, institutions, health-homes, compensation and allowances
for industrial workers. If Russia, a country of agriculturists, could find
the way out, how is it that you, with your world-proclaimed cleverness
as administrators, have failed to find it?...
321
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
“The noble Lord delivered himself on a previous occasion of his views
on Russian propaganda. Today we have to review his actions during the
last 12 months with regard to the Cawnpore trials. Why does he consider
himself entitled to suppress Communist propaganda? He says other
propaganda may be allowed, but not seditious propaganda or subversive
propaganda. That is another contradiction. Every propaganda must be
subversive. If it is not subversive then there is no need for propaganda...
“Every propaganda, if it is effective and sincere, means something new,
and if those who carry it on have the courage of their convictions and
want to put what they feel to be right in the place of the old system, the
propaganda must be subversive. You are talking to the 20th century in
the terms of 18th century lawyers when you refer to subversive
propaganda, sedition and revolution. They are the birthrights of modern
nations, and the birthrights of the Indians just as much as they were
your birthrights.
“I, for one, will not yield to terrorism. I am going to carry on subversive
propaganda, revolutionary propaganda, Communist propaganda,
international propaganda, with the assistance of the Russians, and the
Chinese and the Germans and the British. I am not alone in that.
“The government has kept quiet about the great Indian Railway strike...
the government of India forget that they are the largest employers of
labour in the world ... and I put it quite definitely that, taking a
comparison with any other eastern country, you pay the most miserable
wages, and give the most miserable conditions, and deprive the
population which works for you and for the prosperity of your great
Empire of their rights, and inflict on them political indignity and
humiliation worse than can be found in any part of Asia.
“...But I think even the noble Lord knows that the British government
are treating with the most inhuman, callous oppression the railway
workers, and imposing on them a negation of their rights...
“I touch on one more point, and that is the death rate... I tell you you are
there to destroy human life. It may not be your intention, but that is
part of the game. I ask hon members to analyse the infantile death rate a
little more closely. The rate... for the City of Bombay was 411 per
thousand. That is the normal rate, though it has been 834 in one year.
322
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Even this, however, is a mistaken figure.
“The city of Bombay is a rich city. My own community is one of the
richest communities there, and they do not present a death rate of 411
per thousand. Their infantile mortality is very near your own. There is
also the European population and the rich Hindu and Mohammedan
populations. But if you take the figures of infantile mortality in the
municipal records before the final abstract is made, and if you study the
rate in those wards where factory women live, the death rate there is not
411 per 1000, but it is from 600 to 700 per 1000.
“You cannot attribute that to climate or to insanitary conditions,
because all over India in the agricultural areas without sanitation or
education and with a hot climate, the infantile death rate is about 190. It
is in the factory wards of Bombay, Calcutta, Allahabad, Delhi, and so on,
wherever there are modern factories, that the infantile death rate comes
to between 600 and 700 infants per 1000, and we think that, if nothing
else, that one inhuman item, that cannibalistic feature of your
imperialism, should be quite enough to make you come away.
“You went there, you say, to save the people, but you have acted in a
contrary direction, and in the name of the people here, in the name of
the people there, in the name of the masses, in the name of world
civilisation, in the name of the necessity for world disarmament, I
appeal to you to Bolshevise your own minds and hearts, and to
determine, once and for all, that that imperialism, with all its good
talking points, has got behind it a trail of inhuman murder, brutality,
negation of rights and degradation of human life, and must be dissolved.
“British imperialism must go if humanity is to progress. I do not say that
in a spirit of anger again. I say it for your own sakes ... do not despise
Communist internationalism, study it from the point of view of the
Indians and you will find it of greater value.”
Four days after this speech, Saklatvala addressed the Speaker with a personal
explanation:
“With your permission, Mr Speaker, I ask the indulgence of the House
while I make a brief personal explanation in regard to a sentence in my
speech last Thursday night...
“When I said in the course of my speech that I held myself responsible
323
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
for, and that I am at the bottom of many of the Communist manifestoes,
resolutions and Communist propaganda in India, I beg to explain that I
unequivocally, unreservedly and without reservation associate myself
with, and endorse such manifestoes, resolutions and propagandist
literature as are openly and officially propagated by the Communist
Party of Great Britain.
“This does not refer to documents of doubtful origin advocating crime,
or whatever is alleged, which has no proven authenticity... I would not,
Mr Speaker, endorse here in this House a propaganda which advocates
individual crime through religious or racial animosities, or for personal
revenge.”
When Arthur Field wrote to my brother after Father’s death, he asked the
rhetorical question, “Why did he want to get into the gas-works?” Apart from
the fact that anyone wanting to enter the world of politics aspires to
membership of the House, I think he realised that the House offered him the
opportunity of speaking under the protection of privilege; he was able, in the
House of Commons, to express his thoughts and opinions much more freely
than he would have been allowed to outside.
I think that Father regarded the role of the propagandist very much as early
Christians regarded the role of the apostles, whose mission was to spread the
word. Such preaching, admonishing people to change their existing ways, can
never be popular with those in power who are thriving on the status quo. The
martyrs have all suffered for it and Christ died for it. But every society and
every generation produces its own preachers, teachers and propagandists and,
as drops of water on stone, they have changed the shape of history.
324
CHAPTER 17
The General Strike and a Term of
Imprisonment
Arrest and imprisonment for sedition during the General
Strike of 1926. The Emergency Powers Act and its many
extensions.
The General Strike of 1926 cast its shadow before it— a dark and ominous
shadow. Governments had mismanaged the economy, and exports fell as the
value of the British pound rose abroad. Managers and owners of the mines
mismanaged the mines. Coal was also being produced in the British Empire by
colliers on starvation wages, thus— in the course of making huge profits for the
greedy mine-owners— bringing down the international price of coal. Cheap
coal was beginning to be exported from Poland and the Ruhr. For all these
reasons, and certainly through no fault at all of the miners, there was less
demand for British coal. The industry was facing a mounting crisis.
Yet the only remedy for the slump that anyone liked to contemplate was that
the miners, the only efficient part of the equation, should be forced to accept
lower wages and longer hours; there seemed no other way to maintain the
high profits of the bunglers at the top. Even the most hard-hearted members
of the ruling and employing class must have realised the gross unfairness of
such a course and were fearful of the consequences— there is nothing so
effective in stirring up panic and fear as a guilty conscience.
So the government started to prepare themselves for the suppression of any
activity that was likely to arise as a protest from the mining community or the
Trade Union community in general. The number of unemployed was still
alarmingly high. The government knew perfectly well that what was to be
suggested as a remedy was almost certain to meet with strong, if not violent,
opposition from the victims, namely, the workers, whose wages and jobs were
in jeopardy. Both sides prepared for battle. The United Kingdom was far from
united— it was a nation divided.
325
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
As early as August 1924, Army orders announced the formation of a
Supplementary Reserve for the regular Army. Whatever the innocent reasons
officially given for the raising of this Reserve, there was active recruitment
among trade union members, who were understandably anxious about the
intended use of such a body.
In January 1925 Arthur Henderson, General Secretary, reported to the
National Executive of the Labour Party on the subject; he had, he said,
enquired of Mr Stephen Walsh, who had replied in the following terms:
“The Supplementary Reserve as its name indicates is a formation
supplementary to the existing Army Reserve and is in no sense a special
reserve. It has been rendered necessary because of the vastly changed
conditions of modern Army requirements... These changed conditions
have to be met... It can only be effected by enabling the Army authorities
to rely upon a reserve of men of the skilled artificer and technical class...
“Two classes will be enlisted, the first will be organised into technical
units and trained as such, the second [and it was this category that set
the alarm bells ringing for trade unionists] will require no training, their
military duties, when called upon, being similar to the work they
perform in peace...
326
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
| HOME SECRET AMY AND
A GENERAL STRIKE.
PARLIAMENT AND EXTRA
POWERS.
■^r Sfassr sa&yjate
SSUflKS!?* ctal “
TU Caunu un (U W . «^dja htat
°* .**• Qor«»ia«i$ there wvp. ear or two things
7. * C**»WV«tO«, * little UOTANI
tt. ss he hellered, the Ovvrewmrat hlT *
*“■<*» »*» ft «u .bet*!,
P **°* J " y**" tn Dwq, but fw unOwf
gurjKwe. KTcrrhodr bod omnblrad to reppcet
peeeeat ftsirervatlw Gwremanant boeawse
Umy e^w tlm bad <x Communm being
*!“ ^ •?«“*** s»d ■« alt-rapt being
Buds to Ruwdaalse Ontt Britain Thor
woatad ti>- Qo«aaa«t to scotch nay su3I
.UaapC Wbrt had the
’ Ha ILotd Doby)
h ** < <H»a and *u dung »oc»eUidig .
oat at lb* promt moment they Ai not crotu
fcHL* h,,l w W “- (l****** * « tbe Um
flecrmlMry had not the power* to deal with
IflouauninL, thta tbny Mid, *• Mate Ulom
V&"*cn." (C!Mt«.)
*■, a -»°T*»o* Hsc*a, i, reply,
aaid that the tUUmu who dreltned to bo
*am«d by the vfew, at hi* cacdU friends
woeild. ere lea*. - cense a cropper " la Ms
edmmiotratioi. of the altair* at the State.
The Rent Seeretmy kn.nr perfectly w.D that
llUlu?® 14 n<rt “* PT Haislata In sdvanre II »
unbbe opinion m this country, wtdeh had in*,
i f no< * 1 Its freedom of speech. 0
Jt* 7 to effort » n?*l ch«ui(p« In
thass fisudam ratal doctrines, they had sot
«*** that the ah.*. onuntry
"** b “|®' 3 theca. Ho waatod to eoavinoe
1“* ««««»»? that these «« epute do
flallely a*. attea.pt be»g made to destroy
«• canstrtatlensl OtrrmuaeaU The Labour
Part y h*d. for a Ion* lime, boca wallowing In
a kind ,4 sea trough. uncertain whether It
waa to set witbir. lb*- Cceurtltotlna *r outahla
it. nr whethrr to guvum or attempt to govern
by councils of action. In spile .f the too-
ICMMlce which liad just lak«. plaea, ha waa
aot guile wire where Mr. MacDonald and the
Lat-Hw Party really stood. The Comoiuutst
Party might he small. but It was powaful,
acd deonltely In alBaoct With Russia.
Am-BsmuH l*nor*a*wi»A.
antl-ilritali because they reecguiwd that
RnUlm w«* rr*tofd~.t «a Uia bulwark
of naojly by nil countries Jn tho world. Hs
said that ata Slu horn IhareeU. Potlltt,
OaUacbse, and MthUtioW received tW
Otdts*. directly or indirectly, front Zmoeiefl,
sail after tbs Scarborough Confer™.* the
(.oeasiunis* leaden sat down aad wrote s
long dfudfllos of tboir newsy to their
payn.sgUs In Moscow , At the recent roc. -
fnrrnoc. while Mr. MaeDoisald rast the Coic-
ii.onRts la lanifsage whsrh t.« Okt tVilbaml
to mid never hare thanght of uring. no fewer
thao l,10U,04d Voter wetw oast In favour of
supportlcy a C<wnmMnlst ns-spavts. It did
As jf the 1 ^bo or Party had qilte
MM JUkV of the t*t*t of ComivihBa
It did not Ionic m H tbm Lobour Pttr vrere
H^ICo cWorty determined to bwoniue the cot*
jl'.U>Ce>l-Al raATt >
His pow*«s id rcfcvd to oHctta were Ainpte.
DUt Che ioa! difficulty In ilollng viltli llam
«xUtmaU «u timl th-j ate* HM jff—
and Hit lit led to thv pcotnetuun of the
■seet so long on Ih-y did ncit tnusagrtws tiie
▼cry narrow lltw Lsiswe what rw and shut
was uat eoastUuUonal. Rn prwjccdtd to
foiat* in detail tin* nawlUwun be had bad
with the AtWmuy-UeaesaJ and Public Pros
cwtor hi resard u» uttsraaoee of Ri. b»uij»Wnle
and Mr. Tcan Mann. “ The dedaioo w*s,"
bn mid. that me tbniight thaes stooetxw
woahl probably bs hcM by a Jmry tTb T
eeditloua, but, as twch spmehes wan. Jn-
cmadh* bum day to day in thoir rtolnooe.
•• tbsre Was to be a s sciss of mestings
In the near future. It would not be at all a
bad thing to mnit a weak or two and see if
tbe next epoeehss by thaw, men did not make
the c ear ranrhudve. TVuwi lie moment that
a newspaper pruhllshod dacalls of mj *on-
fmicu neither Tom Mean nor tlaklalrth
bee opened hh mouth In public.*'
Hw was oonntKsd that public opinion
would giro the iiuvcmment nay power*
nsormary to oral with tbla m-oaeo. It was
a matter of Ufo or death for the greatneu* of
rhoand. A Gerrmnsrat which pmasutel
end failed arould make a martyr of a veer
at wary ■ tract owner thro^hoot Ungland.
He had asked tbe Allomer-Beweral and the
Pubvie Pneecutur to asathe U the j>ow«r»
at hh> disposal were snOcsenU and area to
consider what things out* wcmmrr, so tha«-
they might bs introducud Into Parhnment
as soon as it mat.
Rnrt r to Mr. MacXkMtaut.
Replying to Uia letter of Mr. MacDonald
pnblhbad m Tk« iswi yastsrday. tflp WnajaM
•aid : — ** In the tut pla ce , let ms say at ones
that the orsnm’miVy hi wUlM to protect
JSl™ Uts effect* of a general strike.”
(Chuff. 1 Waa tt* ttinBiaiif [>r»t*rvJ to
W* Uia vmy nblnue <4 Uw » oq t»lry, ^
tkM AVAnt At a Ktiun* iUikAa to tW TWieo
v**«e Cop y a m. m by Mr. Mur-
Donald f “ Quite defltdtnly, I am not,” the
House fleer* tary added. ” 1 am prepaerd bo
tnt* Bay toll responsibility ; 1 am i-esjar*.' to
say that the fionrsmat plans are there i
Uiry are ready to be cat Into operation. I
have not nailed fas hntfm.mlHl.ia r nl'uirjMT
bocame f knew wall, if ( call when a strike
taka Hikes and the State la la danger, them
•ill not. b* Wlf-«-n.illloei — Lbec wUl be two
or thrse mUlicna
“ It li trs* 1 hs*s given a quaTiftcd blaming
to this onaanaUan. an orgsnlxaUcat of cwn
of proved hdellty to the Stab*. 1 bars told
them, as I have told every cdhs III iiiwl i situs
that has come to ms. Uiat at tbs moment
of trouble N will not bs allowed to take any
part with military status whatever, but,
II any organlrathm 1s prepared to band me
ova* etmSei bate of men. in Liverpool,
in London, or say other place, same to
a* irwrlal constables, some ns iKun,
as nlTM ol transport, j shoold V a fnoL
behalf of the Gosetnmeot, If 1 declined to
accept them. I believe that If this Communis!,
organisation dare to sat tbemselvre up .
the people of tbs country. If they dare tcOpra-
■note re volution. Ussy will be met with such
an opposition oo tho part of the burned neon
and sowa ef the oocrun unity, and ISA
diderminetlna, that tt will not be Great
HrtUi*. it will not be the ConsVitwtiaa which
will be ImreciTW — It will be the ONomunist
Party which will bo gmsahod to atom.”
(Chase*. I
Clipping: The Times, 6th October 1925
“The Army Order terms of last August setting up the Supplementary
Reserve binds every officer in the Army from the highest to the lowest
and are an explicit guarantee that the liability to be called out in aid of
the civil power will not be enforced... As to the action taken by the Army
327
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
authorities in conjunction with the Railway Companies for recruiting of
a Railway section of the Supplementary Reserve, I know nothing. That is
an administrative act for which, of course, I can accept no
responsibility.”
[Editor’s note: Stephen Walsh (Labour) had been vice-president of the
National Union of Mineworkers from 1922 - 1924; he was then appointed
Secretary of State for War by Ramsey MacDonald during the Labour
government of 1924.]
But, not unnaturally, the trade unionists, the left-wing of the Labour Party and
the Communist Party took the view that, in creating this Supplementary
Reserve of skilled artificers and technical workers, the government was
building up a reserve force of workers who would have to obey the orders
issued by the Army, even if they were called upon to break any strike by their
fellow- workers; a pool of men who were forgoing their right to withdraw their
labour, since as Army reservists, to disobey their Army officers would be
deemed to be mutiny.
Saklatvala asked over and over again in the House for details of recruitment to
this Supplementary Reserve. On 18th February 1925, he put down a question
to the Secretary of State for War asking for the number of men so far recruited
and the trades from which they had been drawn. In reply, Sir Worthington
Evans gave some figures and added, “The only groups of employers which
have been approached by the War Office with a view to recruiting for this
branch of the Reserve are the four railway companies of Great Britain, and
certain engineering firms and transport companies.”
Of course, were there to be a coal strike, it was almost certain that the miners
would be supported by railway and other transport workers, who in all
probability would refuse to move any coal; thus in recruiting just these men
into the Army, the government could be certain that the movement of coal and
other goods, in the event of major strike action, could be undertaken by those
workers who had been recruited into the Army reserve.
The following month, Saklatvala was on his feet in the House again, this time
asking for a breakdown of the numbers of recruits in the various trades. He
was told such statistics were not available. He then asked the Secretary of
State for War whether he had approached trade union groups, as he did
groups of employers, to enlist their sympathy and assistance in encouraging
328
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
recruiting in the Army Supplementary Reserve; and if so, how many and
which trade unions were they?
The Under Secretary admitted in reply that he was in negotiation with the
National Union of Railwaymen and also the Transport and General Workers’
Union. The next nagging question that Saklatvala raised was about assurances
given that the Supplementary Reserve would not be called upon to intervene
in any civil dispute; and he was told the only assurance to this effect was that
contained in the Army Orders.
A few days later he asked for the numbers of engine-drivers, firemen, signal-
men, motor drivers, electricians and clerks who had so far been recruited to
the Army Supplementary Reserve. No details were forthcoming and he raised
the question yet again a few days later, saying that, in view of the
unsatisfactory replies to his questions he begged to give notice that he would
raise the question on the adjournment; this he did on the 30th March 1925.
329
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
THE BRITISH ISRAEL
CONGRESS.
LORD O IS BOROUGH ON ALIENS.
Ufftd CoognMi ntnnhed by
the BhttaH Ure-l Wortd rwlanEm. wm
opcoad tmlotduy *fU rnooa U the control
Han. WaokmioaUr. ted «r|tl be ca*itiau«d
l!ifuaghr«il. Ih« wwk until SetuMtT cvctias.
7*“ nwottan waa (Weeded over by
Lard IHibormtth. A cuauog* w aa received
Iran TMnr-en lH.ce, CuuoteM oC AttdeoA,
ebbd pdiron. cxpra*cin« bee regret at un. (
usable bo be pm* ant, and offer! bee ei<d
wiebes for U>e mice*** ot the Federation.
Lons QcshODOCOB. ia tut opening tddrm,
anttuwioni that Prior ret Louiee, Durboai of
A 1-578, had omen l ead to attend on Wedocaday
tTtnbif, He wetooued tmeng Uxor present
the Doetgrr lady Radnor, not of the rounder*
uftlar inurement, ot which tar lai/t Lord Bodnar
was the Amt president- Thrlr uior.wn.ni,
he prnreeded. «ee not* tl windUng oc a weaken
Ina cauo*. So ottxr Moreaeat u> the country
had gene ahead to rapidly. The line* the
objttlt at Ikeir immanent boconu known
oad nndoestood. the more it coined hold in
the wcotd. Alluding in p ev oua t world c*n-
dlUoa*. he oak] them were ttgoa ot t*.
at band. They read id the newspaper*
of Kosoow t unking tniohle jo Kgypt, India,
and Chinn, and try Is* to Bake trouble la
their Colonies end at borne. No ona knew when
the trouble ceijt.L came to a brad, but be did
writ think it would ewer ha wary as seen* Ho
bad enuwwnoea forth nod cc arid rcco ia the
working eloeaes of this counter- There was.
however, a danger ernt. Tbrra ware. cerfoM.
mnilooa ot aOcat fo this country wU
ware not too proud to taka off they could la
dole* and charity ooA then torn gad hit* the
hood that led thorn . That >u a oaoker m Uifa
country oad the Gowerametrl ought to dad
with it. Bo did net heat tote to Incfode ia
that rateyccTT one of thttr mamba* of Parlia-
ment. Mr. Kiludieln ((Vrn.) They haul
glvoa him hoapltollty, nTkiwed him to becrat
a member ot Pnrtlaaanl, and that he ahrwld
be prroilttod to turn rewind and Lite (bear who
warn helping bun through Ida woe a ~-«-~lei Vo
the system under which It su allowed.
(Cheat*.) Hither he nog tit to be deple te d or —
II that was IDegal abut up la ootat room
where he would he cafe, la ha opinion, that
would be a lethal chamber. (Laughter »no
ebeore.
Clipping: The Times, 6th October 1925
In his speech he reiterated the history of the ASR and recounted what extreme
importance was ascribed to it both by the present and the previous Secretary
of State for War, who were both of the opinion that without sufficient numbers
of skilled men being raised in the Supplementary Reserve, the Army would not
be efficient. In view of the vital importance of the numbers being recruited,
Saklatvala said, he found it astounding that the Secretary of State told him
that the figures for the recruitment for each vital trade were not available
either at the War Office or in the House. When the efficiency of the British
Army depended on satisfactory recruitment, it was astonishing that these all-
important statistics were not available.
“I put these questions one after another, making allowances for the
democratic spirit of this House, and I put the same question in a
330
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
roundabout manner in five different forms, and I am still without an
answer.”
He went on to quote the Secretary of State on the subject of coercing the
members of the ASR into activity against their fellow workers in any civil
dispute as saying:
‘“No doubt the Communists do claim that in no circumstances should
the Army or the reserve be used in support of the Civil Power, but
hitherto trade union leaders have never argued that the state is not
entitled, if the police force proves insufficient, to claim the assistance of
the armed forces of the Crown.”’
Saklatvala said that the Communist Party went further:
“The Communist Party is right in its attitude that international war of
the working classes of any other country is as criminal and fratricidal as
Civil War at home... There must be a common understanding, and that
can only be arrived at by facing facts, and the facts today are— I, for one,
and my Party, as such are not ashamed in stating it— that we consider it
our sacred and religious duty to tell all the British workers to keep away
from the Army as well as from the Army Supplementary Reserve.” This
forthright attitude to the Army was to land him in serious trouble the
following year.
In September 1925 the Sunday Worker wrote:
“The Sunday Worker is able to state positively and definitely that the
ASR is being used as a means of placing at the disposal of the big
railway companies a corps of enrolled and oath-bound black-legs, liable
to penalties of martial law for refusing to scab for their fellow workers.
Couple this with revelations as to the recruiting into the ASR of
thousands of local government employees and the reality of capitalist
dictatorship is made clear... Are not all these preparations being made
to ensure victory for the employing class in their forthcoming offensive
against the workers’ standard of living?”
It was on the 30th June 1925 that the coal mine owners announced that they
would terminate all existing wage agreements at the end of July, and
demanded an immediate end to any minimum wage and an immediate
reduction in miners’ pay. Not surprisingly, A.J. Cook, the militant secretary of
the Mine Workers’ Federation, refused to accept the changes demanded. The
33i
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
General Council of the Trades Union Congress gave its support to the miners.
Prime minister Stanley Baldwin, on the other hand, said that all workers must
take a reduction in wages to put industry on its feet. The TUC was as good as
its word and, in response to these unreasonable demands by the government
and the mine owners, put an embargo on the movement of coal by rail, road
and sea. This prompt and strong action resulted in Baldwin offering a subsidy
to the mining industry to maintain wages at their existing level until 1st May
1926.
A Royal Commission under Sir Herbert Samuel was set up to examine the
state of the coal industry and to seek solutions for its ills. Meanwhile the
government divided the country into ten regions, each with a Civil
Commissioner and a team of civil servants to deal with any industrial unrest
that might arise. The Royal Commission made its report on 26th March 1926
and it pleased neither side in the dispute. It condemned the mine-owners and
it also condemned the government subsidy; and it decided that the miners
must accept reduced wages. Both owners and miners rejected the report.
All these events united the working class in Britain as perhaps it has never
been united since. The people had had enough and were determined to stand
up for their rights.
332
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Clipping: Daily Mirror, 17th October 1925
In an attempt to diminish the strength of the rising tide of the workers’ anger,
in October 1925, twelve leading communists were arrested and tried; five of
them were given a sentence of twelve months and seven of them were given six
months in jail. 167 miners were arrested and charged with ‘riotous assembly’;
fifty received sentences ranging from fourteen days to twelve months. But all
this intimidation merely served to strengthen the resolve of the workers.
Saklatvala was among 70 MPs who wrote to the press demanding the
immediate release of the prisoners.
The Sunday Worker of 27th December 1925 wrote:
“Local Labour Parties, ILPs and other bodies are holding protest
meetings and demonstrations from one end of the country to the other
and ‘Release the Twelve!’ has become the slogan of the whole Labour
Movement.”
“At a Labour Party meeting in West Fulham, Saklatvala addressed the
333
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
crowded hall, saying he was not there to force them into the Communist
Party, but the present political and economic situation would make
communists of them all within the next twelve months. It was the
government, he said, who were waging the class war by allowing any
form of terrorism and force so long as it was directed against the
working class.”
Herbert Smith, president of the Mine Workers’ Federation, wrote to the
Sunday Worker in the same issue:
“...I am sure the forthcoming year is going to be a big test for the whole
movement. We are now faced with a united capitalist class. The means
for conducting our struggle are being endangered every day. The
communist trial showed that very clearly. These lads who are now in
prison are where they are because the right of free speech, together with
other elementary civil liberties are being taken away. We must resist
such attacks... and get the twelve communists out of prison. Yes— we’ll
see things happen next year.”
A body called the International Class War Prisoners’ Aid collected over
300,000 signatures on a petition demanding the release of the communists
and the miners. Saklatvala presented it to the Speaker in the House of
Commons on the 24th February 1926. The Sunday Worker wrote of the
occasion: “Comrade Saklatvala really performed a feat of physical endurance
as he carried the entire petition— in his arms, on his back and suspended from
his shoulders.”
Alas, far from gaining the release of the prisoners, many, many more were to
be imprisoned before that fateful year was out. Joynson-Hicks (Home
Secretary) admitted to 1760 arrests but it was generally believed that the
number was more like 2,500.
Nor was it only the communists who took up a courageous stand against the
bullying tactics being used to crush the workers’ defence of their livelihoods.
George Lansbury said:
“We call upon all soldiers, sailors and airmen to refuse under any
circumstances to shoot down the workers of Britain, and we call upon
working men to refuse to join the capitalist Army. We further call upon
the police to refuse to use their batons on strikers or locked-out workers
during industrial disputes.”
334
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
By the end of April 1926, it was clear that no agreement was going to be
reached, and that a strike of the miners, and almost certainly a General Strike,
were inevitable.
[Editor’s note: In February 1926 the Battersea branch of Labour Party was
disaffiliated by the national Labour Party.]
May Day that year was of special significance, for it was also the day when the
government subsidy came to an end. A multitude of workers assembled on the
Embankment on May 1st and the vast procession marched to Hyde Park where
nine public meetings were being held. On May 3rd, The Manchester Guardian
reported under the headlines: ‘Labour’s May Day Celebrations— Procession of
Unusually Large Scale’:
“Saklatvala seemed to be the hero of the day. He was followed to his
platform by a swirling wake of enthusiasts, and his meeting was much
the biggest. He is, one imagines, the most powerful mob orator of his
day. This sallow Indian, with a face worn by fanatical passion,
dominated the whole scene as, with outstretched, claw-like hands, he
harangued for a good half hour. With a sort of sombre joy, he acclaimed
the General Strike as the definite rising of Labour against their
oppressors, to a chorus of ‘Good old Saklatvala!”’
It is interesting to note that the Manchester Guardian reporter gave no
indication that the speech might be considered as seditious, or that it might be
interpreted as an incitement to violence. He reported that there was no
mischief in the crowd— which, while being enthusiastic, seems to have been
orderly, as was the case with Saklatvala’s meetings in general. He appears
always to have had complete control of his audiences and there is no evidence
of their being rowdy scenes at any of his meetings.
335
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
MAY BAY.
LABOUR DEMONSTRATION
IN LONDON.
A U*k« number of ovynixsllru v swocUtia!
with tha Ubo« Party In Lnuim la«A part
10 tha May Day dtmcieiitrstiocfl on Saturday.
As la Ioaxmt ywir». (be main rallying point
win the Thames Embankment near the
Temple (MetSoo, and hot the ptoramon was
marshalled foe (he march (o HnS. put
Aiwm* (lie stronepat eoatlngecta iron (hem
from the ooopernUv* sorietWa, the trade union*,
and Ui* liKletnodciil Labour Party. 1 >>«
(.'■oe.muu.ct Party *u aW> reprwvnted.
■rronil of its mambatv appearing la red
ahirt*.
W'tira the procession u-ju drawn up ready,
to start tt stratchad from Temple Htatica to 1
BIk'iIiWii, hut thanks to the ssvMaae* of
a strong fore* of foot and mounted police
it was dispatched without a tillrh A subsidiary I
■>koc*«sIo«i. niunfa waa amt by a separate route
to Hrdr Pork, waa made up of horaa-drawa I
ralrk-b* containing children u'to vr«te to douce |
round the maypole ami to take part in a
choral prognuiun*. Th* route followed by
tba main ptoacoesan was im Nurtnlk.-itr**t, I
Kingsway, and Oiloolwlrtw* to Marbs* Arch.
A* It moved aiowtr on ita way th* (mi-
ce* ion Irnirtbinwl, sad whiw the vanguard hsd
atrtvod at 11 ydn Park the rrairncet units were
still in th* neigh bosnhnod of Mt. Oit*s's-i>irewn
A great congestion of trail 1* wn» oauaoi in
OiMatrsrf, and the police were uUipd to
allow westward bound ▼; hi lira to proceed m
the wrong vie of the rrwil. Many of th*
ile i no a* tnL. as rang nurrhlng songs- and
fitm trine to time gave vent To iubukr war
cries. The inost input** catch phrase lioroud
tote- Ualp the Miners. "
Much rpwruliitKjei was arouse! by a teWcau
which represented a to pi to lint lolling in an
armchair with lin feet resting amid a (tfc of
money bags cm a table. Th* car on which this
set was mounted was drawn by a i*|Kw*n(sti<«
party of work**, nail behind It marched a
band c 4 members of th* Oathdrc Prusade-
Amoog those who can>|> **d this curious roar
guard were men curbed as prseata. On* of then
curried a rsw while * native* swung a recur.
Although tb« trading members of 11* iir>-
coraksi reached the Park about J.J0, late
contingent were «Ull striving at t.4B. On*
of the List part i«w to ranch th* miwting-grcnuid
uws n delegation from the fodim tkwmm’a
L'bkxi. It wna genre -Py agreed * name the
nrgsnisepi that the crowd lr* One of the
largest which had ever at tended a Labour Pwy
ilemuiiktrstii in io lum 'loo. Ita number was
eeUmated at not Wra than 58,000.
Srtn.il* » TItdb Fan.
When the procnaron raoebed Hyds Park a
nutnbrc of meetings were formed, which were
address -d by numerous raonkms. Amotss them
were Mr. 0. O. Ammon, V.P., and Mi*. Svilsl'
vuk. M.P. Another pletlonn which attracted
a larg* audiaco* waa owe raprosenta’.! vu of tbo
worltn of Mmmts. R. Ho* and Co., of K ad clil .
and here a aeoilct-clad woman spoke far some
Urn*.
On the arrival of Mr. Ssklatvaln. a hue*
crowd aacortwl Win across th* pork to the
wagon of the Young Uoratnunfet Leogu*.
After upholding th* aid* of the minors In the
dkfp-ts. h« urged on has bearers the advisa-
bility of not attempting to purchase the
rains*, tbs railways, and other great indus-
tries i instead, b* sa.il, the proper thing to do
was to go ahead and tail* theta. Another of his
remarks wee that the Union Jack bad lor
hundreds of yoors harboured and proton W
fooh and rogues, and it was high tltue it was
turn down.
There was narrr any trouble between the
PeaeWU or the. Labour Party which vrarrantad
any action on th* part of th* police. At enc
time, however, there was a slight skirr.ulsh
with a psrty of th* national F***l*ti who drove
up to the Marble Arab tied of the Pork, nincLiig
the National AnUtora. They ftiiitJnued to
driv* on in their mow-oooeh and a Bimtbrr of
the Labour people boarded an omnibus and
gav* chaw. Th* conductor was posnrfrn
to *cm the rusk, ftrvrra.1 id the men hung
on to tlw roil* and steps, and contiau*!!
following Uw motor coach as far as Kesutoc-
ton. wh*r» It turin-d down a side -street,
Tbe May l>ay Mr-vels orgnnrred by th* In-
dependent Labour Party wwre held yceterday
»ft«n>oc*i at the NLtwnd Theatre. Children
from various Socialist sellout* danced and — -f-
cireUently, and a on m petition for choir* was
won by th* Ctaphara Socialist Sunday he hoot.
Miss Ishbct MacDonald, in tirau-nting tha
aidald to th* winners. said that It tn* pleasant
U> hmr Urging hka that, M th«e was not
much harmony m the outside vitlJ. Xb*
parfoevnano. was brought to On end with th*
crowning of Vet* Hillman as Ibb year's May
Cf
Clipping: The Times, 3rd May 1926
On Monday 3rd May, he and my mother were sitting together in our billiard
room at home when two men in raincoats and trilby hats could be seen coming
through the garden gate and approaching the house. Father said to my
mother: “Sehri, I think this means trouble, but don’t worry.” The two men
were, of course, detectives. My brother opened the door to them and showed
them in. They told Father they had come to arrest him and read out the
charge. They then asked if they might use the telephone and put a call through
to Bow Street police station; the telephone call informed them that they had
336
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
arrested Father prematurely, as the Emergency Powers Act, under which he
was to be indicted, had not yet been passed. They then made the position clear
to my parents and asked Father to make himself available later. My father
assured them he would either be at home or in the House of Commons and
would be ready at any time to receive them.
The detectives were not the only ones to be a bit premature. Home secretary
Joynson-Hicks had said the following in the House of Commons, a week
before Father had made his speech:
“If I may say so, the hon member for North Battersea has for a long time
been a great temptation to me. I must confess that more than once my
fingers have itched when I read some of the hon member’s speeches.
Listen to this: on 22nd March this year he said: ‘The Union Jack is
nothing but a symbol of murder and robbery’. That may not he
seditious, but, after all, we on this side, and many members opposite,
believe in the Union Jack. Our blood boils when we hear statements of
that kind made in regard to the Union Jack.”
Father conducted his own defence when he appeared in Bow Street Police
Court on 6th May, the case having been adjourned for two days when he first
appeared on Tuesday 4th May.
[Editor’s note: Bail was provided by George Lansbury.]
After that first hearing and adjournment, he was certain that he would be sent
to prison. He was afraid that I would be greatly distressed by the news and
said he would explain everything to me himself, which he did, at bewildering
length and detail— remember, I was not yet seven years old. He explained to
me about the miners being asked to accept less money, he explained what a
strike was, and he explained his speech in Hyde Park and why he had made it.
“So, you see, I think the government will send me to prison for a little while,
and I may be away from home for quite some time.”
“O, good!” I exclaimed, jumping up and down and clapping my hands, “then I
can sleep with Mummy!” I seemed to have inherited Mother’s capacity for
minimising the dramatic effects of any political calamity. I hope Father was
more relieved than disappointed by my apparent indifference to his enforced
absence— after all, he had wanted to save me from any distress.
On 7th May 1926, Saklatvala appeared before Sir Charles Biron. He conducted
337
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
his own defence, addressing the court for nearly an hour. He said: “...I
consider myself just as unnecessarily called upon to be bound over as our
Prime Minister might be. It was never my intention either at this meeting or in
any of my propaganda work to incite any sort of disorder or encourage any
sort of breach of the peace.” (The proof of the pudding was in the eating, for no
breach of the peace and no disorder had in fact resulted from the speech.)
Sir Charles Biron contended that there was no doubt that the speech in
question was a seditious speech, calculated to provoke public disorder. He
bound the defendant over to keep the peace for twelve months.
MR. SAKLATVALA SENT TO
PR ISON.
KKiUSAL TO BK ROITND OVRK.
. ***<> Court y«*roday,
b<£jm Sir Chart.. Bunn, Mr, jUMo.
v*l«, M.P. far North Hotter***,
%o «n adjeunmj cbargo an^-inif tfcat be
the pubUr aud
“ of t*i « mmi' hrMvAes at
«kn i»<k« end otiiir idnoal aod Milk*
«p<m him to »***, „hy bo AunlS
DM cuter >nte rteogiiWinapi u*d find
rnrrrtei be bio future good bahavfon.
The du pm. wt of t mad.
by the defendant *t the Mor-Dky
•fomanjOwtioe la Hpdu Park-
Mr. W. U IbotagMoa, mfieitar, who
KptwMnCxI the dckatbot an the fba>
oecarion, iahmated that ha Mould i*»w
nimt oot Mo own ftefra^e.
Adrirturlmf the Court for Marl* u,
hour, Mr, feUatval. .aid it ni novur
prefomd to (laud aritariffag lhim ooo-
■UU. > _
Sr Churn* Btroa tan] tW n, nan,,.
abU man mulct bare any cW* bat that
J" »" <*o«dnn waa a wditfou*
Mfoulalrtl la. prartfca pjl.lio dfo-
ardw and it waa the man miscfckvnu,
Mtnadeahqg the eirmmttaoo* fa trkkh it
woedtlmnd. Qa bound (ho dafewhukl
■TO In bn own nccguiianeea in 19(0. b.
kesp the pea** for 12 tu* th*i. and
ardjmtd Inin to find two nnbu fa H50
■“[i ® X* to pfuon tor Iwo month*.
The ditonitrat decDo*** to hi bc^ixl
wwm r io4 wW that thr» imtirMozmct
Ik in tk fW« dhrkiu^ 1
r-r CnAncj Bbim **id ttiftt tbm **. -
■} Action foe neori. *h 0
nutted fo pernio & ifoboiH of &*di~r
Kirttiwi, and he would mate* „> Mra* *
ILw a la* a*a* 1
Clipping: The Times, 7th May 1926
The defendant said, “In my honour and conscience I cannot accept the
decision to be bound over.” (The report says that a voice in court cried, “Hear!
Hear!” but that there was no further demonstration.) Saklatvala was sent to
prison for two months; he served his sentence in Wormwood Scrubs.
338
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
On the way to the prison the escorting detective offered Father a cigarette,
which he refused. The detective urged him to take it, “It’s the last one you’ll
have for quite a while,” he said. When Father explained that he did not smoke,
the detective said, “Oh well, prison won’t be such a hardship for you then—
that’s always what men miss most.”
When Father reached the prison, more kindly advice was proffered, this time
from the prison officer who was registering him as an inmate. When Father
was asked to state his religion, he replied, “None.” But the officer advised him
to put down C of E, so that he would qualify for church services on Sunday
mornings. “It makes a welcome break in the routine,” he thoughtfully
explained, “and gives you a chance to be with other prisoners.” So he was
admitted as a Church of England man! His visits to the Chapel gave him some
comfort. When he got home he explained to Mummy that he joined in the
prayers and hymns, but always put her name in place of the deity! (Although I
was unaware of this until much later, whenever I was singing hymns in
assembly at school, I invariably substituted ‘Sak-lat-va-la!’ for ‘Hallelujah!’)
339
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
^ ■Parliament.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
F»nuT, Mat 1 .
The Spb*KjOi took the chair at «|cv«u
o'clock. .
Mr. RAKLATV ALA’S ARREST.
Tbs Strakkr read a latter from the
Chief Ifngutrate at How-street Police
Court cnnoerMtog Um conviction and «*o-
teaca of two mouth* impncomneot in the
aeoond division paaaad on Mr. Baklatvala.
M.P.
Mr. Kuu-uood (Dtunhutoo, Lab.),
aihrd whether than waa no way in wtrioh
the House could protect it* member*?
i Laughter. and a Unionist manbee,— ** Hr
« piMeetad !*>- Mr. S&klatvala was a
* tracker within tbeir gates ( laughter).
The Bwmcw, — Tb» boo. member can
only apeak on a point of order, and be
cannot argue the matter.
Mr. KtUtoooc asked whether there waa
no way in which the all-powerful Honae
Of Gammon* could compel the Government
to step in and aay that Mr. SaklatvaU
wa« not to be interfered with T
The Swakbs, — A member of this House
aa regards the criminal law is in exactly
the same position aa any other person
(ebeers). ; ‘ •/ • _
Mr. Eukwood, — H as a member of this
House not got privilege »
The Swum,— No ; the privilege of a
member of this House does not cover any
breach of the criminal law (cheer*).
Mr. Kirkwchjd, — T he man wbo is the
least influential and humblest member of
the House from the Government's point
of view is the tnan whom they nave
arrested and imprisoned !
• This Stkulmi, -The hon. member
oatmoc argue the matter.
Clipping: The Times, 8th May 1926
I was recently told an apocryphal story which is amusing, even though I
cannot vouch for its veracity. It is said that when Father made his first
appearance in the chapel, one prisoner asked another, “Who’s that bloke?” His
neighbour whispered in reply, “He’s a Parsi— he’s in for sedition,” This was
whispered along the line until it had become, “He’s a parson— he’s in here for
seduction.”!
The voice that had cried out “Hear! Hear!” in court so jubilantly was that of my
mother, overwhelmed on this one occasion, so that despite her usual quiet and
retiring demeanour, she expressed publicly her wifely pride. She was to receive
many letters from wellwishers after Father’s departure for prison. One of them
was from Mr H.A. Heath, Hon. Secretary of the National Union of Clerks. He
340
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
told her that at a meeting of his Surrey Branch, there had been some
discussion on the subject of Father’s imprisonment, some members wishing to
send their condolences and others to express admiration and congratulation;
it had been left to Mr Heath to decide on how to write. Her reply I find
touching in its simplicity and directness.
“Dear Mr Heath,” she wrote on 21st May 1926:
“Very many thanks to you and your Branch for your message and kind
feelings expressed by you all. I am afraid that my feelings, like your
letter, are a little mixed, but on the whole, I think I am happy to receive
your congratulations and not your sympathy. To tell you the truth, I
have considered the many messages of sympathy rather out of place,
because I was really very proud to see my husband make the firm stand
he made, and to go to prison rather than go back on his word and
pretend to be sorry for what he said. My husband’s reply to the
magistrate when he asked him to be bound over was the following: ‘In
my honour and conscience, I cannot accept your decision to be bound
over but will go to prison for two months.’ I could not help feeling
proud; at the same time I felt sorry that he had to go to prison, but I
would not have liked him to make any other decision. I shall keep your
letter to show my husband when he comes home.”
During Father’s sojourn in prison, which he found very interesting and
stimulating, (and which proved very restful for him physically), we received
many visits from ex-prisoners, all bearing messages for my mother from
Father. When the first one arrived, looking rather like a character out of a
whodunnit, Mother was a bit nervous and asked my eldest brother, Dorab, to
remain with her in the room. But, whatever their erstwhile crimes had been,
they were all happy to bear glad and loving tidings from Father— they were all
very kindly towards us and all spoke warmly of their unusual fellow-prisoner.
My mother asked one of them what he had been sent to prison for— he seemed
so quiet and reserved; in reply he showed her a scar across his throat— he had
been imprisoned for attempted suicide (a crime in those days). Mother felt
deeply embarrassed and grieved and never again enquired about the reasons
for their incarceration. One of them brought a piece of prison bread for
Mother to taste, baked in the prison— a sort of ‘speciality de maison.’ Another
one complained bitterly of the meagre prison diet and said sarcastically in a
34i
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
gruff voice, “...and anuwer fing, they boil yer eggs too ’ard!” (meaning, of
course, that they got no eggs). My innocent and ingenuous sister said blithely,
“Oh, Daddy won’t mind that— he loves hard boiled eggs!”
One of our unusual visitors smuggled a written message from Father out of the
prison; he apologised for not coming immediately upon his release, but he had
smuggled the note out under his tongue and had to wait for it to dry. He
explained to Mummy, “There are other places I could have put it, begging your
pardon!”
Father had used the tissue paper that covered photographs he had been
allowed to keep with him. He received copies of Hansard as a member of
Parliament, and also he was permitted special visits from his solicitor, because
he was conducting a court case against Tata’s and cousin Dorabji at the time.
I celebrated my seventh birthday while Father was in prison— it was the only
birthday I ever spent without him during his lifetime. Wherever he was and
whatever he was doing, even when it meant travelling all night to come and all
night to go back to his work, he always celebrated my birthday at home. (I
think this was true of all other family birthdays, but childhood memories tend
to be self-centred). But Mother gave me a gabardine raincoat and told me it
was Father’s birthday present to me. I just assumed that he had been
especially taken out of the prison to the shop to buy it for me! It seemed a very
important present indeed.
An even more important birthday present came from Mother’s aunt in Tansley
in the shape of a little black puppy. We called him Binky and he was my
faithful, loving and loved companion till his death when I was at college.
Although Father was fond of animals he had never allowed any of us to have a
dog, because it would add to my mother’s already gruelling workload. But
when he came home and found Binky already installed, he raised no
objections.
Soon after the beginning of his sentence a rather spiteful girl at my convent
school put her tongue out at me as she passed me in a corridor and said,
mouthing and emphasising each cruel syllable, “Your daddy’s in prison for
saying nasty things about the King!” and I said, with an air of knowledgeable
superiority, “Oh, no he isn’t. He’s in prison for sedition!”
All in all, 1926 was an eventful year for me as well as for the nation!
The authorities were afraid that there might be demonstrations in support of
342
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Father on his release from prison. So they sent him out a day early, but would
not tell him in advance of the exact time. Father sent a message to Mother
through his solicitor, asking her to be outside the prison gates as early as
possible on the morning in question; he said she should bring flowers for the
chapel with her name on them; he would go to the chapel and would thus
know when she had arrived. He explained when he got home that he just
wanted to know Mother was near him and he wanted hers to be the first face
he saw when he came out into the world again.
On his release the Workers’ Weekly wrote:
“By far the most dramatic incident in the House of Commons this week
was the sudden and unexpected appearance of Saklatvala, straight from
Wormwood Scrubs. At 10.30 he was in prison; at noon he was sailing
merrily into the Tories.”
Here are extracts from his speech on that day:
“I hope the House will pardon me for any slips on this occasion, because
I have only just returned to this House from a semi-socialistic
institution in which I have been taken care of on a much better scale
than the poor miners. I also beg at this juncture to express my gratitude
for the many considerations which have been shown to me, and also for
the happy impressions I carry away of some of the brighter sides of
British character in regard to the treatment meted out to me by British
prison officials, which I have reason to admire...
“I have been permitted through the courtesy of Mr Speaker and the
Home Secretary to follow the debates that have taken place from day to
day during my absence and I understand from a study of those debates
that this morning’s special subject for discussion is the question of the
money which has been sent to the miners from Russia in aid of the
miners’ families who at the present moment are in dire distress...
“We are apt to forget that it is the right of all those possessing money to
spend it as they like, and in whatever country they like. This has been
done by the British nation and by British individuals in the past and
they are still doing it in other countries. When these facts are borne in
mind, we soon see how mad we are in trying to differentiate between
our own actions in this respect and similar actions by other nations
when we are blinded by prejudice...
343
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
“I ask hon members to be good enough to remember how a short time
ago a very keen interest was taken by a number of French citizens in the
parliamentary elections in this country, where a campaign was being
run by free-traders, and these Frenchmen sent subscriptions to help the
Free Trade movement in this country. I was right in the middle of
research into this subject when I was forced to take a rest. Again, I ask
the House to make quite sure whether one or even two Liberal members
of this House, who are honourably associated with the history of this
House, were not enthusiastically financed, quite honourably, of course,
by that well-known American citizen, Andrew Carnegie.
“I would ask the House whether this nation, individually as well as
nationally, has not poured forth British gold into Armenia on
humanitarian motives? Do they never think what suspicions the Turkish
government has been casting upon that? Have you not been pouring out
money to help the abolition of slavery? How would those people who
sincerely believed in the benefit of the slave system at that time think
about your action then? How about temperance associations?
“Travellers come from America, France, Germany or Belgium, look at
various institutions here, and subscribe five, twenty, thirty or fifty
pounds to any institution which appeals to them, merely from
humanitarian motives. What is wrong? Do you want to undermine the
whole of that? Do you want to say to the world that money shall only be
subscribed geographically? Look at your Christian missions; look at the
millions of pounds that you are sending out of this country to China. It
may be a very noble act from your point of view, but it might be quite
the contrary from the point of view of the Chinaman or the
Mohammedan or the Buddhist in other countries.
“You want this country to forget its past, present and future proclivities,
and to be ruled by blind prejudice against Russia. Let us look at the
facts. There has been a strike— a general strike or a sectional strike— it
doesn’t matter which. One thing which does matter, and which no
human being can deny, is the economic and material hardship and
distress that follows during the period of a strike...
“There is no denying that, in all sincerity... the present people of Russia
believe that the supremest good in this world is to assist the struggling
344
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
and starving workers and their children, in whichever part of the world
they may be. That is their new standard. They do not make a secret of it.
There is no conspiracy whatever about it. To them, the supremest
standard of philanthropy, the highest standard of human good, is not
temperance, is not religious institutions, is not the question of legal
slavery or its opposite, is not socialism. To them, at the present
moment, honestly and in all sincerity, the highest standard of human
good is the assistance of workers in other countries in their moments of
distress.
“...I myself announced a few weeks ago, when there was a strike of mill
operatives in Bombay, that I had been instrumental in remitting to
Bombay £1,054, which I honestly believe was subscribed by the textile
workers of Russia...
“We were permitted to listen to news from the outside world in the
church on Saturday mornings in the Wormwood Scrubs socialist
institution where I was... I heard there that miners and their children
were still starving, that this is the 6th week of the strike, and so on, that
trade union funds have become exhausted and then it was impressed
upon us that a sinful and criminal action was being carried on when
some human beings were sending £100,000 to assist these starving,
human children.
“At the same time, we were told that a certain gentleman had offered the
sum of £100,000 as a prize for some race horse. We are told to believe
that this last action was a glorious, patriotic, righteous action, when
miners and their families are starving owing to the action of those who
came to possess that surplus of £100,000 for race horses...”
There was jubilation and celebration at Saklatvala’s release. A big meeting and
social was held in Battersea and he was, perhaps even more than before, in
demand as a speaker. Even before the strike, a meeting addressed by
Saklatvala was a great event in many of the mining and industrial areas of the
provinces. It is recorded that on one occasion, miners were brought in from far
and wide in buses and coaches, and 70 miners actually walked seven miles and
back again to hear Saklatvala speak. There was never any disorder or breach of
the peace at any of these meetings, attended as they were by hundreds of
people, indeed, often by more than a thousand when the halls were big
345
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
enough, or meetings were held in the open air.
But throughout 1926 the Home Secretary kept extending the Emergency
Powers Act, under which, again and again, the police, following instructions
from Joynson- Hicks, cancelled any meeting that was to be addressed by
Saklatvala. Often the cancellation came after the audience was assembled,
many of them having come from miles away, and they were told to go home
and that no meeting could take place after all. If the authorities really wanted
to avoid a breach of the peace, this was surely a strange way to go about it. I
cannot help but think that they would have welcomed rowdy scenes from these
bitterly disappointed audiences, but nothing of the kind happened. Saklatvala
himself was frustrated and unable to carry on the propaganda that had
become his all-important work.
SOVIET
“NEWS”
STRIKE.
OF THE
ENCOURAGEMENT BY
HEADLINE.
Kmtn tlw b«*iiii»ing ol tlio Oiteral
Ihe oxiiltatiou mzjtl t!» hcmdline*
the oR.i-iaI Soviet neu-siwpWH, Jzrvatia
»’td Pratrln, proclaimed I lie triumphant
prottpous of the “ tin I it *miui ixt ilw hour
tftoint-." The following mv tfoijne of
the headmfr*
"Your end a Hoff Atll™ Worker* on
nlnkr.”“ tompirt* Knit tray MepPoffc. Panic
If M** Exehaoge. Urwt, Drop in the Rate of
tlie blrrllng." tins * ion nut Class. Tin
Oorernraent ol the Cool Magnates h mobilising
|t« Pater* and Organising Hhefcfccs lor Figtit-
Pruheartat." " Britain Cut Off from
Is* Coal i neat." ** Panic Stricken B.x.rgt-uisio
KTceUig to k-i-o.ii** •• <• Mutxlio« the Cap italiat
***• Fntile Athai|4a to T»ue Buuranli
Papers." “ Unroot Aiuoog Troopo. Welsh
Confined to barrack* for Broach of
Uuciiiane. Uox.oainent Statement on Riot
n * AJitieihoC - ** Powcrfoe Hatred. ComraiSo
halcJulsala Sentaoevd to lenpriaonmeat."
Communlot* Active. Coainriis (Movieta) of
Action Kncmed Every* here * “ Soviets on
lbs Watch Hart™ IW r Cut offtroS
oa« ol Londons Hoaptiaia Frequcatsd by the
HmuthvoU!*. The Local Sorirt l^vtrni that most
<d the Medical Staff liad Enrol to) in the O.MA”
“Haldutn Preparing a Bloody Hath r«r the
* rOkurtAt. Ttoiki* in tsinijoii blood
if '! or M T * Hh f* m Bull.' • - • tfartfkge • in
'» yi nitk n Abljrjr. PurlUm-Tit. in Dnrfcjitt*."
" Tnulu Union Council UrnaiUecn Ttunapcet
tolonnaLoc. Pood. Itadna-lioiw atxl Finance
SMtUms. .MSIIlura ul Cop|« of the Brtf,**
it ocher. “ “ Choos In London Street*. Hour
nolkie Pttnfc (Mrkkim by Cancellation of
itace MecitlW* and the Appmrar.** of The
riuuu a* a small Ty pe-written Sheet of Paper.'*
Only one Steadier mar Perhaps be abfci to
1-eavc Finland •• «• Hal. may Transport at a
iHamMlU. lining to lncrptri. no- of tha
blackleg Drivers, Railway An-tdent* are Be
coming more fn-qooet.'- (This * fthim aa a
T.U.C. official atalement.) “ Meagre Koapooa*
to Ap-tieal toe Special Co.mUblca. Oowrnmeot
Mobvlnlnc Pollre Rcaems. “
Clipping: The Times, 18th May 1926
346
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
He could still, of course, speak in the House of Commons, and this he
continued to do, forcefully and to great effect. Whenever the Emergency
Powers Act was brought up for further extension, Saklatvala vigorously
opposed it. In July, he contended:
“...It is from that point of view, that I, as a representative of the workers,
should always oppose the Emergency Powers, because according to a
confession of a supporter of the government this measure is required,
not because any real or genuine emergency exists, but because we want
to neutralise the rights of the workers as organised in their trade unions.
That is the argument of the hon and learned gentleman, who perhaps
was more clever than he required to be on this occasion.”
He went on to say:
“...The crisis came as a dispute between the employers and the
employees. The armour of the employees is the trade union
organisation, trade union legislation and trade union practice, and in
order to make the fight unequal, the master class, through its puppet
government, wants to deprive the working class of that legitimate and
constitutional armour... We oppose this Emergency Powers Act exactly
on this ground, and it is an Act which really does not enable the officials
to meet some emergency... but it is an Act produced with the deliberate
object of abusing it, as we have seen the present government abuse it
every day of the last 2 months with the deliberate object of using it as a
class instrument of the basest type, and the deliberate object not of
using it against Lord Hunsden and others, but of using it against certain
representatives of the working class...
“The existing crisis is not only a money crisis... It does not simply mean
that over a million men are out, with the families, facing all the dangers
and hardships of life, and saying that they would rather starve than
surrender... We who are responsible as representing the organised
workers of this country... are responsible to them for carrying on a
progressive fight to demand and obtain for them their social, political
and constitutional advantages and rights...
“The Emergency Powers Act prevents us from carrying on that fight.
Some of our speakers have a perfect right in such a crisis to speak to the
men and women of the nation and to show to them the dangers of the
347
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
indiscriminate use of the Army and the police. We have a right to
demand for these men their rights in the managerial control of their
own industry...
“The Emergency Powers Act permits the masters and the capitalist
newspapers complete freedom to advance their rights... to put forward
their claims, demands and criticisms, and to indulge in their vehement,
unjust and unpardonable abuse of Cook and other persons fighting for
the miners; while on the other side, those who are fighting the great
battles of the working classes are deprived of the right of speaking and
fighting for their political, social and other privileges.
“We are now asked to renew the Emergency Powers Act for the third
time. I think we could have pardoned the government for the first time
as they thought an emergency existed... and they sought to protect
themselves behind the Emergency Powers Act... but if in two months the
government fail to bring about a settled condition... the government
ought to resign and give up the job...
“Honest men and women with clear and logical views, have definitely
come to the conclusion... that the government and the Ministers of the
Crown, have ceased from yesterday to be the impartial and trusted
Ministers of the nation. From yesterday they are merely the hired agents
of the coal owners. There is not the slightest doubt about it.
Legislatively, officially, definitely, technically, they are the hired agents
of the coal owners of this country. They have ceased to be Ministers of
the Crown, and it is a falsehood to describe them as Ministers of the
Crown, passing an Address to His Majesty. From today, under the
Emergency Powers Act, they are going to use the police, the Army and
other forces of the Crown, and even the Civil Servants, in a class war to
fight their friends’ battle...
“It is a great strain upon the loyalty of the policemen, the soldiers and
the Civil Servants... Nevertheless, the government resent it when we go
to these people and say, ‘The government are using you for a purpose
which is immoral, unconstitutional and illegal.’
“Every policeman, every soldier and every Civil Servant who is a man of
honour and conscience, should either chuck his job or act against the
government, rather than lend himself to be a tool in their fight against
348
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
the nation.”
THE COMMUNIST
PAPEliS.
INSTRUCTIONS FROM
MOSCOW*
party organization
AND FI7NDS).
'IV) CuVrrmn*fit DiimJ rnWf^AT tC
* Mu» J 5 c<ik S Mftj. ftic t
"•VT* thtl XO Afrrr fnt4 t
4l. rwv on thf* Ulf)l of ifaji
I.V.uuuuiiixt WIkx un fJcttixr 14 iml ?1
w* Tli* pr-'An «an Mowd *t
*■" hMdgu«rL4r» rf ttU 1'liummnirt
P«ty C < Crtnt Rnr»^ in, Kinr^irnwl.
Covant <4*rrt«|. «i.J of rbft Salim.ll
M 1 "* ' 1 )' Muvaui»r, JS, Crlol On-nod-
lIlWV. arid. Ol o'J&#r* Djjdivuu. |>h v* r^J
t** 5 * in. veto abmvmI f ZC OEdCliuuliuii.
7W Jt«:.12asta HlMni ice
hffV . ift u wrm . lurt «hr««r
W f r |^ r HMtoiimari fhnMfCtt, V*> fur
fhe* liCfcfc thry rhrw c«i U»c entity*
■tw=wH*d And xyilMudh ci
BnluL lifn Etinliiami* fa-«fgn ♦i-f.-
ClA^. li id H-f.'Wtx ifjjk, julaJU Um »v*tTV*
‘ uf il*« < r py.-vn . Party
iii Uiu tuuyyfcy te ltirtll, at it *•> resumed
Id K.miuiKa with ULlrualioa* 1 rwMh’td
/t««u lliO iu:mlxa i:*n
= 5 «trt*: in o v«y Mrytb, m»Jur Uvtnyr&fo
'•d/ilhirrt Ufthln •X'VTm t't ■ mflii.
*!»•► lwv» r.TTTjb^ffl uf nrc-iV>rmn~i : infTlt‘
T>/«™ ton h.r, T*v*Unnjw nf
tbcih* r CUiIh,.* y| i-jtf jn_i y M rH ita fV«*
£41 iouair from flip ^
>!?.. HJUILATTAT 4
M A !>U* r < Sflfcrf pr«t •irm
lix. *■■-». iUtv iU In U»* k*r»* 4 j of Lu
C.rW.iL rvcMcCnr rhn aRJ^pJU. u* tt* fW,
n»fhi ivuty tt« iAt<i >r r.»« . •• xt>««
*• *** na»*b Jitttr*"’ bo tay* •• « i„v ..^h
llAv >tlh:ui drjtffi fl'A'ip, tc i«jd m. rt.r
lUfty JmU *.*:• ti^uMvwl lex: ta '.VciibcMD*
la I.txmI 1HI/.YI. rw.„^l U rr ■.■mctxx Mil
tifdniwu t*.*i au- a wr* |»jr*. aiaaKUeo
ftT tit litiutj.
1 In "Ut to »anii>> H.i(. *< out x.V .,,1
norrtw* taeamrm U idr, .b« ’tarn- fit/j.
ft . mil net n«vil t* ill* m 3 l of xxl-ixilv
mptanvem. .rex. *n urn roqiarc tc&i M.,-
*w ml lb.; \arrf <nVi* it Vo «lw» *
.Ui^orya AAAxjr Uu lolUfioilCi ptc-
U:n of oil tl.. wed fc vat. .1 lUa
w 'ace lan tauia 1 ptw will. Ilia -Ci*. n*
**,* Tm>>. «ui fie. lift r.ioa V.ll ha rnwnj ; D .„
ax ipm Bc'l •c.lllrt'tj* H|fr, IV. rrn<
M|vol U< lx*< At *t JImtot tfk Itt
k«if<ur<T l> Hu 4 I itn niwdSy
W: jbzrUi FW utllii]* U*»t ||m fTp,
UK iJprKM lr» (.cfitaU fkr>rtir«i vu j
ItiTjal !ti#lf mtn 4 L^i-nxI n±>jmx* rr», ..
Id- 1 lw lc«*li >». iuul i*«rtr and He i( t • ru j
pdh4r.\J TTMiir tee S^^ir\u hz* Uxu
by tho Ur. rt#u' i> 1 y- c.P.
n-/ 4 C \u«» ui» au ltu uzty
HU-cmvncJr. 111*7 CO uOir ftxlli
Dir. itaUiir /kHiaaiu/ as srlll lei t: t|ir
*nr Aipr sb* wmi of *oi U»<
KidUn of Jrr 9 mmJt 4 v. « 4 nh 4 «bvi <ojI Ua
trrw^ ,,fC. UhAS:xv]Um U BnkaL %n* ^
pun -.»v> U» vnlac aih^ti
•* wr Mwild I'ul <1 so v--«x. siacnar ^s/.c
ol V.ir tW • UIp KiU vi^ir R
Mil'/ c/.< ai IfcjB C.P. ut Um pxijivr rf * 1 ^,
*» *«No«C mi/ <lw p VirMMtasuc rri^
Ik* *cc&*r* W'/b In jir.'al a? t to XuIrtJ
» ' tual i’.lvM il JjiftctD no litud
Jun V.« ywlllo. rtf 4i..A. V u7\*v*Xtm
t-i if. d an ■uluil: tul Mapn ary n*Din
lhn */TtJ»rt*c ac*iH CTMtlr srzjk.-.ti tar jwJ.
uf attow MIP.’a.'*
Dowiytcx icitvms*
fn*i Drl'm vr iV B A tcOiiJm.
■Iwuami doloi r.*il Hi» Artf .’iW uf
ou&»4*0tVir* aCU&nWI Raj Jxau.JTtf<t.
T.ikm^uO. lacl liter ttia Cerr-TUBki Pwi*
UT fhpv ' BlitiVk, iii BLitnii Difnajrot,
llokifl^, a«al m* aif'Kin aliroc«d.
Tft«: Urtodc ■ lati-x beet. tU oamlil
?ar;rr/;ot U (U B-i’-iju CCmia.*JLUx laxly
■— JOr ai^adcK a hibw.ioIi^
bj rpno *aa ^t|tv ,, jaU> 1 L OxAnd
rimn «7 ^|VT?nf rrr t rlxo ir*««-
■mor >2 lllliui tiobaU VAu njtfTJTmd til?
aadartllhy if Mr. wJ: «•*».'* «i 4 iiji*c ao
■TW^U'lI »iUi iv'.alu «C Lm«tf.(.*lu/ imrU(
b: RtiraJDA In h.T* r li !%•> ro« iV •% frr-
7bi untmai'm *-d tfca.. lha IV1
D»u, Tha Hailb ul Cxiord
In JHwrt |r 4 o rf# fnfr.?h$ i«.«Jla.ai
calM>*4.H. -ji.aUtuiv »1 : ^no=^b#t% II 1
tttfilfcb. »; J.iUc.xx.i f.P.Si, aii“U!p ,,1 |...
aipr«nt IV. hanfimakj : uiduitUI. J A
Ai>»tbar lx too iKfn rtp *A<U>I 0 >nxl
lb- tftiiba LAaomakl ru: ty, 6aUt
•/uaa 51*. Iftl>. tabular a.tiJa airaay it Um
prwi'r. i. nidi Ir dBMr«n rHh cln.d
b. &\yV Poltx/ViC. Cacaa^i. ud
anrxyj AlKcan, T4a jtm, and c'-ttaao atulmi)
tfU dnbfMl tj< Hi^niiiuti' In Ik kit
*«■* Cf Udbe. Wt*t» WartdTr. r^TV- K la
•J^bi that .*4 pjuti.atok jtciUa at m
ttHf apeak w?h tipx hju ban dy-
U . I Vo jeortAratteo nf a Tfir^raQDfci:
i i-x :4 m raxana prUfpa
•» lbs hflpt trt^r. Tim iiwk s tun
m |Ar.’ In pftM'ol itnpxrxtioo xen Ml BMn
omt Sf.h, roltot. Ill i*l|m>T I 111 -' xIUixlx
BluilliM V11X . x eroAlr^tif ,1 fl v y lid;
*■ TW. r wl |i .till lira. I li.n.
-.••KOI pwinif.. lti> pipiion. mil I.
’“J* 1 ?'.* >fttn Jlf tv Jcv^tuiet£
4f a ildtfii. lAiitf poraiJlt faun- nt
«nr4 UA m ii, m* i.jiv iiuuo to rail Mr
« *» or rcry •uxinu ttal
Inf. diroXJ tok«-|iaA."
Clippings: The Times, 25th June 1926
So Saklatvala continued to make good use of the House to put forward views
that the Home Secretary prevented him from putting directly to the people. He
also drew the attention of the House to the prejudicial use of the Emergency
Powers Act to suppress even the routine meetings that he always held in his
constituency, and to the suppression of his meetings in general.
For instance, he explained to the House that:
“There is a democratic understanding as far as I am concerned— it is a
definite pledge which I have observed and kept— to at least once a
month render an account of what has gone on in Parliament. I do not
see why suddenly all such meetings of a general character— which in the
past in no single instance have put any strain upon the police— should
be prohibited.”
He had been informed by the local police that they were going to prohibit and
suppress any meeting that he might try to address in his constituency.
Although he was the representative of that constituency in parliament and he
was democratically answerable to the electorate there, he was to be prevented
349
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
from communicating with them. What price civil rights? What price
democracy? What price the relationship between the people and their elected
representative in parliament? Saklatvala claimed in the House that these
emergency powers were being used, not to control any real national
emergency, not on a nationwide and impartial manner, but were being abused
merely to further the interests of the Tory Party.
When, in July, the Home Secretary asked the House to extend the Emergency
Powers Act for the fourth time, Saklatvala again vehemently voiced his
opposition:
“I want the Home Secretary to note that his coming back to the House
for the fourth time for these special regulations is an epoch-making
event. Here is a strong government, or one presumably strong, with a
large majority in the House, armed with laws which are quite sufficient
for carrying on the administration of the country, but it comes to the
House for the fourth time when as a government it is only two years old,
and says that it is incapable of carrying on the administration of the
country unless it is armed with most extraordinary and despotic
powers... and I say that the only honest course for the government to
take is to throw up the sponge, to admit that it is incapable of finding a
solution to the present industrial problem, and to tell the country to find
persons capable of administering the country with ordinary law.”
I am writing this on November 21st 1989, having seen debate in the House of
Commons televised for the first time. One of the most interesting aspects of
these pictures was the sight of large numbers of Conservative members leaving
the chamber as soon as their leader, the Prime Minister, had recited her little
piece. These televised reports will undoubtedly show the British public how
badly attended the debates are. It is not a new phenomenon.
On 4th August 1926, during the adjournment debate, it was claimed that a
very long recess was needed for over-worked members of the House.
Saklatvala intervened to say:
“The present condition of the House shows about nine members of the
Conservative Party present. That has been the maximum attendance on
the opposite benches since the Foreign Secretary spoke. It has been
known to us that out of the 400 Conservative members, for more than
three fourths of the time, scarcely 20 members attend to their duties. To
350
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
describe them to the country as an overworked, exhausted band of hard-
working men who deserve a three months’ holiday, is a grossly
misleading statement.”
Let us hope that the present restriction on showing pictures of the chamber as
a whole will soon be lifted, so that the general public can see how sparsely
populated are the benches in that great chamber, seat of the mother of
parliaments. Such absenteeism in our workshops and factories would leave the
nation bankrupt and, no doubt, would bring down the wrath of MPs on the
heads of the offending workers. It would add greatly to the interest of the TV
viewers if pictures could be extended to include the bars and dining room in
the House, so that we could see our members at play as well as at work. It is
frequently emphasised that members have exacting duties to perform behind
the scenes in committee; perhaps the public could be informed in the press of
the timetable for the various committee meetings and the names of the
members attending them.
On the 27th September 1926, Saklatvala spoke upholding the miners’ claims
for which they were still on strike, in spite of terrible hardship and want for
themselves and their families. In the course of a long and detailed speech
Saklatvala contended:
“We of the Communist Party, the Cookites or whatever our opponents
call us, will continue our education of the miners until they realise that
so long as this slave labour exists in the empire, so long the economic
position of the British miner will be one of continual danger, and that a
permanent peace can be established only when that scandalous part of
British imperialism is ended once and for all. The miners must live.
Their children must be fed and clothed and medically treated, and they
are entitled to certain joys of life.
“If the economic fact is continually proved, generation after generation,
that the mining industry is not capable of producing the complete
economic requirements of the miner, and at the same time producing
royalties, dividends, commissions, large salaries and all kinds of
camouflaged dishonest profits for the mine-owners, that clearly
indicates to the miner that the time has arrived when, in defence of his
wife and children, he must demand the complete abolition of
shareholders and royalties, and profits and commissions and individual
35i
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
control. Until that time, there will not be a permanent settlement of the
dispute.
“Even if the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Leader of the Opposition
and the Leader of the Liberal Party in the House became a triumvirate
to deal with the problem, it is moonshine to say that they would bring
about a permanent peace so long as the economic fact brought about by
competition between country and country continually demands a
raising of hours and a lowering of wages...
“Our appeal to the miners is quite clear. If they want permanent peace...
we ask them to rely on their own internal strength and to demand
immediately an embargo on foreign coal... The only salvation for the
miners is to appeal to their brethren in the trade union movement. They
should appeal to every man who stokes a boiler or a locomotive to say
that he would not touch foreign coal, and to tell his employer, ‘If you
want coal, get British coal and come to terms with the British miner.’”
On 28th September 1926, the Home Secretary again asked the House to
extend the Emergency Powers Act. Again Saklatvala opposed the continuance
of the Act. In the course of a long argument, he told the following anecdote,
illustrating the muddled and arbitrary way in which these emergency powers
were being applied. A large procession and a meeting to be addressed by
Saklatvala had been advertised ten days or so before they were to take place,
under the auspices of the South Wales Miners’ Federation, on 8th September.
Late on 7th September, the superintendent of police informed the local agent
of the Miners’ Federation verbally that the meeting at Hoelycue and
procession were to be cancelled. It was not until the morning of the 8th that
police notices appeared prohibiting the procession and adding, “The holding
of any meeting at or in the vicinity of Hoelycue is also prohibited.”
Saklatvala asked the House:
“What is ‘the vicinity of Hoelycue’? Does it reach as far as London,
Bristol, or even Moscow?... So the miners’ agent ... again telephoned to
the Superintendent pointing out that they had another meeting, on
which considerable expense had been incurred, at a place a few miles
from Hoelycue. He (the Superintendent) said, ‘I cannot tell you whether
that also comes within the word vicinity or not.’
“...Seeing the indefiniteness of it, I wired to the Home Secretary, asking
352
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
for clarification of the term ‘in the vicinity’. I also wired to the Chief
Constable, ‘With reference to the circular, should you not define vicinity
of Hoelycue in actual mileage radius, if you do not desire unnecessary
harassment of Labour speakers?’
“...I had to keep running about in order to avoid the so-called area, and
the government agent had to go about on a motor cycle to find out
where I was. At about 3.30 he found me about 12 miles away, because
the South Wales Miners’ Federation was determined to have that
meeting and had it, but we had no desire to walk into the provocative
trap of the constable, or to clash with anybody.”
Mr Harney: “A good meeting?”
Mr Saklatvala: “A very good meeting... The other method adopted was
this: the authorities had a notice of the particular meeting and the
procession a few days before. But the police did not give us five minutes
to inform the public that the meeting was cancelled. They rushed the
people hither and thither and sent out of the area even the charabancs
in which some of the people arrived— [Hon. member: “Charabancs?”]—
Yes, the miners have as much right to sit in a charabanc as you have to
sit in Rolls Royces...
“If that was the way in which Regulation 22 was used, it was a wrong
way politically. I think the hon and gallant member for Leith (Captain
Benn) told us that one of the ambitions of the Home Secretary, as
proclaimed by his own followers, is that ‘Jix [Joynson-Hicks] is the lad
to keep the Reds away,’ and if he is simply making use of that regulation
to keep up that reputation, he is making a gross abuse of his position in
Parliament.”
In October, the emergency powers were again on the parliamentary agenda
and again Saklatvala spoke on behalf of the miners; yet once more he
emphasised that the cheap production of coal within the British Empire was
putting unfair competition against the miners of Great Britain. He accused the
government:
“There are 50 million tons of coal now raised in the Empire under
conditions which are a disgrace to anyone who calls himself a civilised
human being. Not only do the present government permit this, but
members of the government take a share in the profits, and as long as
353
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
this game is allowed to go on, the state of affairs cannot be regarded as a
mere accident of the trade, but as a weapon of the class war...
“There is not a particle of truth in the suggestion that the economic
position of the coal industry is such that it will not produce sufficient
wages for the miners. It will do so if only the government will see to it
that the unfair competition created by exploited labour, by their own
colleagues and friends, is checked instead of being helped on by
exploiters whose names appear every year in the Honours List...”
In the following month, Saklatvala drew the attention of the House to yet
another case of the abuse of the Emergency Powers Act by the Chief Constable
of Derbyshire, who had verbally told the organisers of two meetings in the
county that, if they would prevent Saklatvala from speaking, the meetings
could go ahead; but that if Saklatvala were allowed to address the meetings or
to take the chair, the meetings would be banned.
His protest was supported by a Labour member, Mr Morgan Jones, who
stressed that he had no sympathy with the Communist Party but he
maintained that the issue was of interest to “everyone who likes freedom of
expression of political opinions.” He agreed with Saklatvala that the
emergency powers were being abused and misused, suppressing any political
discussions if they happened to relate to the Communist Party.
Two days later, the question of banned meetings was again up for discussion.
The Home Secretary made it clear that chief constables had the right to ban
any meeting which, in their opinion, was likely to cause a breach of the peace.
In the course of that debate Saklatvala argued thus:
“...If I, or any of my communist colleagues, had had a notorious career
in the past, if event after event had happened, and that as a result of
addressing meetings, riots and brawls had taken place, I can understood
that it would give a prima facie cause for anyone honestly to suspect that
whenever I addressed a meeting, it would end in a brawl. I have
addressed a few thousand meetings throughout the country and there
never has been in any instance, any occasion for anyone to be turned
out, such as is often the case at meetings held by friends of the Hon.
gentleman. Nothing of that sort has ever happened.”
On 29th November 1926, the Home Secretary asked for the eighth time for an
extension of the emergency powers. Saklatvala reiterated the view that, if a
354
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Home Secretary could not keep order in the country under the longstanding,
ordinary laws of the land, he proved himself to be an incompetent Home
Secretary. He again stressed that the powers were not being used to prevent
disturbances and riots but rather they were used exclusively against the
Communist Party, the opponents of the party represented by the Home
Secretary. He mentioned the case of a speech by a Colonel Leather, in which
he spoke openly of “bloodshed,” yet there was to be no prosecution under the
emergency powers.
“The excuse given was the flimsy excuse that that speech was not delivered in a
mining area,” said Saklatvala. He continued:
“The Home Secretary pursued me from the first day of the Regulations,
when I had spoken in Hyde Park, and I think the nearest coal mine was
much further away from Hyde Park than from where Col. Leather
spoke. Hundreds of persons who were arrested and tried, were not
arrested and tried because they had spoken so many yards nearer or
further away from a coal mine, but because they belonged to the
working class movement and were against the coal owners; and whoever
has spoken of bloodshed and riot and shooting, so long as he was a coal
owner himself or in favour of the coal owners, is not tried under the
Regulations...
“I want to draw his attention to the fact... that his own colleague, the
Minister of Labour, has delivered a speech which is not only
contemptible but is criminal under the Regulations, in which he said, ‘It
is [A.J.] Cook’s folly and cowardice that are ruining the miners.’
“Just imagine it. A member of the cabinet, whose family has flourished
on the starvation, under-payment and over-production of the miners,
whose family has made money out of the blood of the miners, and are
today crushing the miners that their future dividends may be higher
than they ought to be under a just administration— that minister has the
audacity to refer to Cook as carrying on a policy of folly and cowardice.
Cook is fighting as a hero against the family of the Minister of Labour,
who is one of the worst inhuman exploiters, living on the blood-money
and the sweat-money of the miners...
“What I want to point out is that Regulations of this sort... are quite
handy weapons... in the hands of one who has always shown himself to
355
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
be a party man above everything else. I honour him for being so zealous
a member of his party; I do not blame him for it, but I suggest that it is
this over-zealousness which induces him to ask for these regulations,
rather than his impartial judgement on public peace and public
affairs...”
The speech is a long and powerful one. When it was all over, the Home
Secretary, Joynson-Hicks, felt constrained to say: “I feel that I should
apologise to the House for being the unwitting cause of letting loose the
torrent of eloquence which we have just heard from the hon gentleman. But he
has, if I may say so, one point for which I admire him very much, and it is that
he never loses his temper. He is always courteous in whatever he says.” I think
that this observation says much for the character of Saklatvala and also for the
then Home Secretary, the one for being always courteous, the other for
acknowledging it.
This was to be the last time the Home Secretary appealed to the House for an
extension of the emergency powers, because the miners were forced at last to
capitulate to the coal owners, accepting longer working hours and reduced
wages. There is a limit to everyone’s endurance. The hardest thing for strikers
to endure is the knowledge that their fight, however justified and however
much it may in the end benefit their families, is, in the short term, causing
their wives and children to go short of food and warmth and clothing and is
even putting their homes in jeopardy.
It is all too easy for strikers to be starved into submission in any prolonged
fight. The threat of starvation is just as much an act of terrorism as the threat
of death by quicker and more direct means. It is nonsense for governments all
over the world to claim that they will not negotiate with terrorists— all
governments, both capitalist and communist, are themselves terrorists; for
their ultimate sanction is force, wielded by the Army or by the police or by the
withholding of the means of livelihood. When they speak of ‘deterrents’ in law
or by their standing armies, the deterrent is always the threat of violence, the
instilling of fear, the instilling of terror
356
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
EGYPTIAN GOVERNMENT
AND MR. SAKLATVALA.
REFUSAL OF A VISA
On instruction* from Cairo, tho
Egyptian Location baa refuaad to visa
tho paasport of Mr. SskJatvaln, M.P.,
after he bod obtained tho British ondorco-
ment to visit Effj’pt. He wrote protesting,
and tho Legation hoa replied that timer
action is in accordanoe vrith regulations.
Writing oo Dscmnbor re to the Socrpotnry
o t the Egyptian Legation, Mr. Saklttvala
■aid i — It is somewhat puzzling that aft-r
th» Brfckih Porvign Office, which it in reality
a tituUr Power orec Egypt, has granted a
panpurt to a British M.P., altar due inquiries,
Egypt should condemn that Government and
tvrtRO that dccWon. I am experienced enough
to realixu that Egypt's refusal may be from
Egypt, y*4 not from tho Bgypttaos. I shall,
therefore, thank you to enlighten me aa to
whether your Howl is based oo your own
authority, an any standing regulations against
members of tha British Commimht Party, or
whether it is tlic desire ot tha Egyptian
Oovernment to wdcocne only such British
M.l’.’s who endoixet tho half -mill Ion sterling
fin e and the mule ting of ilia Sudan, and to
refsiHS admiasion to tnoas who oppceed three
measMtve, or whether the British authorities
In Egypt are advising his Egyptian Majesty's
Gorenuneot to prohibit entry into Egypt, of
such members of tho British PariUuuent as
they disapprove of."
In reply the befTotarjr ot tlie Legation
wrote H" I beg to state that, in accordance
with our Consular regulations, endorsement of
your pMsport cannot bo granted.' Mr.
Snkiatvala nailed on Thursday W. by the
P. and O. steamer Rsnssk for India eta Mar
n’ULeo, He bad proposed to spend a few weeks in
Egypt on his way back from India next March.
In the meantime, he has circularized members
at Parliament asking tbcm to raise the question
of this rcfUM.1 of passport in tho Houoo at
Common*.
Clipping: The Times, 3rd January 1927
It is not only governments, but individuals too who exert their power over
each other to induce their fellow-beings to conform to their standards— the
parent threatens the child, the teacher threatens the pupil, the manager
threatens the worker, the law threatens the citizen, with some sort of
punishment against non-conformity. It is inevitable. Terror is necessary to an
orderly life— and a disorderly life is a terror in itself. But the hypocrisy in
denying the use of terror is not inevitable and is shameful, as any hypocrisy
must be.
For a man whose primary political function was the conduct of propaganda for
his party, this all-but-total suppression of his meetings from May to November
in 1926 was frustrating, both for Saklatvala himself as well as for the
Communist Party, whose cause his oratory normally served so ardently and
effectively. This mutual irritation may well have been the spur for the
357
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
Comintern to arrange for Saklatvala to visit India and to conduct communist
propaganda there.
Whatever the immediate reason, Saklatvala sailed for India at the end of
December 1926, arriving in January 1927. The rapturous welcome he received
from multitudes of the Indian people must have done much to assuage his
recent frustrations in the UK; for the three-month tour could only be
described as a great personal triumph for him, and of infinite benefit to the
communist movement.
358
CHAPTER 18
A Return to India
Tour of India in 1927 and correspondence with Mohandas
Gandhi. Parsi ceremony for the children incurs disapproval
of the Communist Party. Passport endorsed, preventing
further visits to India. Foundation of the League Against
Imperialism. Second visit to the Soviet Union, 1927.
The following message, printed on cloth, was presented to Saklatvala at a
meeting held in Bombay on 24th January 1927:
To Shapurji Saklatvala
Dear Brother,
Bombay, the City of your Birth, welcomes you with all her heart. It has
been Bombay’s pride and privilege, that all three Indians elected to the
British Parliament, have been her own sons: Dadabhai Naoroji,
Mancherjee Bhownagree and Shapurji Saklatvala.
Brother, though you were born in wealthy surroundings, you have been
from your very youth a true Friend of the Poor, the Suffering and the
Sorrowing. Whether in India, or in Europe, you have felt and fought for
the Suppressed and the Oppressed— often so singly, and always nobly.
Brother, you are essentially a Citizen of the World. Castes and Creeds,
Colour and Sex, Continents and Countries, do not affect you at all. To
you, Humanity is One Great Family of the Divine Father; and you strive
and struggle and suffer to bring mankind together, in loving links of
Unity, Amity and Harmony.
To that noble goal, our great Gandhiji, Rabindranath Tagore, Jagdish
Chandra Bose and T.L.Vaswani are all labouring with such love and
light; and may you keep that Torch always ablaze abroad.
Brother, as a Friend of the Poor; as a fearless fighter for the Oppressed;
as a Lover of Liberty and Freedom for all; and as an untiring Worker
and Fighter for Fraternity, Equality and Peace in the World, dear
brother, we greet you, we salute you, and we wish you a long and
359
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
luminous life, dedicated to the service of our dear Country and of the
suffering Humanity at large. Amen!
We remain, Dear Brother, Your Dear Friends and Admirers,
Countrymen and Comrades.
While Saklatvala was still aboard SS Razmak sailing towards India, the
Evening Star in London reported that “he was recently granted a Passport
after considerable delay, which resulted in a written protest to the Prime
Minister.”
On 15th January 1927, the Bombay Chronicle, describing Saklatvala as “one of
the finest orators, one of the most magnetic personalities, and one of the most
consistent of India’s sons,” also reported the delay in the issuing of
Saklatvala’s passport for India, which had only been granted after consultation
with the government of India: “...It rendered impossible any pre-arrangement
of meetings... So Mr Saklatvala goes to India unheralded and without any
suspicion of advance agent or stage manager.”
The Bombay Chronicle of 15th January 1927 reported, under the eye-catching
headline ‘I Come to Serve’:
“We publish below the following special message written by Mr Shapurji
Saklatvala in response to a cable sent by us to him. It was handed over
by him to our representative who was the first to see him on board. At
the request of Mr Saklatvala, a copy of this message has been sent to all
Indian papers.
“‘Yes, I have at last come to Bombay and to my mother, India, from the
mother-country of my children.’ He said he was coming after a gap of 13
years. ‘That period of 13 years, first with the Great War and then with
the Workers’ Revolution in Russia, has made history for almost 130
years for mankind... The war had many aims, some declared ones and
some concealed ones. However, it is the results that have to be reckoned
with.
“Nations and even sections of nations are divided up, they are asked to
live in water-tight compartments politically and commercially. They are
all to develop nationalist patriotism based upon suspicion and dread of
their neighbour. The doctrine of implicit obedience to a strong
governing class being the only safety for the masses is being preached
openly... The powerful victor states are seeking more power and are
360
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
extending their influence over the newly created smaller states and
nationalities...
“‘On the other hand the Russian revolution has made and still
perseveres in another call. It wants to break down old barriers of
nationality and creed. It calls upon the masses to realise that they are
never really safe unless they govern themselves and their state from the
workshop, or the farmyard and field upwards. It proclaims for
international unity based on mutual economic safety in place of
influence and domination of one nationality over another...
‘“When I come to India in this condition of the world, I realise I shall
meet with a changed atmosphere, changed mentalities, and even altered
personalities. There will be much for me to see, to learn, and to ponder
over, and there will be quite a lot for me to impart out of my political
experiences and observations... I come to serve and to serve with
devotion, but not merely with emotion; I want to make my service of as
much practical value and usefulness to my homeland as one humanly
can, but for that I want the help, the good will and the trust of everyone
who is working in the cause of India. I shall need every ounce of
guidance, of good temper, of comradeship in war or peace.
“‘Therefore I appeal to the Indian press to broadcast my humble
request. I desire to quarrel with, or to object to, nobody... I desire to
work out a harmonious, pleasing and serviceable design to the pattern
of my daily experience of the struggle of man, the sorrows of woman,
and the suffering of children. There has to be honest disagreement
without disagreeableness, there must be severe and outright analytical
criticisms of policies without malice...
“‘Majorities do not overwhelm me, minorities, and small minorities, do
not dishearten me or bring weariness on my brow. I face my issues
calmly and I bear my Party’s standard singly in the British Parliament of
615 members. So I am trained not to value opinions by counting noses...
“‘I am a believer in the human heart, and I have come directly to speak
to it; I am a believer in the masses, in the poor, in the worker, in the
peasant, and so, till I have met them, and till they have permitted me to
speak to them, I shall say ‘au revoir’ to the pen and the printed word. I
shall of course come back to you in my effort to bring about proletarian
361
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
unity from Battersea to Bombay and beyond.
“‘And now, my greetings to you all, and my salutations to the memory of
Shradhanand. Sh. Saklatvala.’”
It was reported in the press that hundreds of admirers assembled on Ballard
Pier long before the boat was sighted. The article goes on to say:
“As soon as the steamer touched the wharf, representatives of the press
and various organisations rushed on board to take precedence in
honouring the great man. Heaps of garlands and bouquets were
showered on him... Mr Saklatvala was all in smiles while the imposing
ceremony of the reception was going on
“The curious thing about the whole function was that Mr Saklatvala
refused to be garlanded. He smilingly remarked that he, as only an
unknown soldier in the field did not deserve the unique honour that was
done to him. He collected all the garlands on his arms and intimated his
desire of making an offering of them on the grave of the Late Lokmanya
Tilak, the ‘known soldier’ as he said, who really deserved, even in his
death, all the honour which India could accord to her patriot sons...
“On landing on the wharf, Mr Saklatvala was immediately surrounded
by enthusiastic crowds... it took almost half an hour for his car to bugle
its way through the throng... Followed by many of his friends, Mr
Saklatvala arrived at Chowpati and in profound reverence, he placed all
the garlands and bouquets offered to him on the little stone memorial
erected on the beach in memory of the Late Lokmanya...”
[Editor’s note: Bal Keshav Gangadhar Tilak (1856 - 1920) was an early leader
of the Indian Independence Movement; his slogan “Swaraj (self-rule) is my
birthright, and I shall have it!” remains well-known in India].
It is sadly interesting to note that Saklatvala was not invited to stay with his
younger brother, Sorab, who, presumably would have found the public
expression of his older sibling’s political beliefs an embarrassment in the
capitalist circles in which he worked and socialised. Saklatvala was made
welcome and stayed with one of his cousins, Jamsetji Saklatvala. This slight
from his younger brother must have hurt my father deeply but, so far as I
know, he never mentioned his disappointment to anyone, not even to my
mother. (This same brother made me most welcome in his home after my
father’s death and showed me great affection, generosity and kindness; I could
362
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
not help silently remembering the hurt he had inflicted on Father; but the
good manners required of a guest, and the deference due from a niece to an
uncle forced me to conceal my latent anger).
While Saklatvala was still on the high seas, the Sunday Worker of 2nd January
1927 wrote:
“Unlike the tired Leader of the Labour Party, Shapurji Saklatvala is not
going abroad merely to bask in the sun. He says he is going to work for
the brotherhood of Indian and British workers. He will certainly have a
very energetic try. His record here in England is warrant of that. I have
his diary of engagements for the past year before me as I write, and
would offer a bet that Sak’s list of meetings addressed would beat that of
any other propagandist in Britain. [This in spite of the cancellation of
meetings under the emergency powers and the time spent in prison!]
“Bad health, including a very ‘dicky’ heart, does not deter Sak for a
moment. On one page of his diary you may see entries showing that on
two successive days he spoke at four meetings in Northumberland and
Durham and two in his own constituency of Battersea. That means that
during the intervening night he travelled South by train, sleeping as he
always does, wrapped in his overcoat, even on the floor of the corridor
in a crowded train— certainly never in a first class sleeper— but Sak did
not say to the pressmen in Marseilles, ‘I am tired and need a rest.’”
Saklatvala wrote to the Daily Herald from India:
“I am not going on any idle holiday. I am going to make another great
effort from the Indian end to pull the two working-class brotherhoods
together. Every ounce of goodwill and encouragement from individuals
and organisations of all types in the British Labour Movement is
needed, and I appeal to you all to send me a word of support, a voice of
encouraging good cheer for the poor, down-trodden Indian workers
from every trade union and socialist branch...”
Such a crowded schedule was to be maintained and even increased during
Saklatvala’s three month tour of India. On the same day on which he arrived,
Friday 14th January, he addressed a meeting organised by the Trade Union
Provincial Committee in the afternoon, and in the evening addressed a
crowded meeting of textile workers. The following day he addressed a huge
meeting and public reception in the Sir Cawasji Jehangir Hall, where,
363
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
according to press reports:
“[Saklatvala] spoke for an hour and a half and his whole speech was
permeated with humour, sarcasm and wit, which kept the audience
roaring with laughter all the time. At the end he was surrounded by a
surging crowd that virtually smothered him with their congratulations
and cheers.”
Saklatvala travelled all over India and was rapturously received by audiences
numbering thousands wherever he went. The Indian newspapers reported all
his speeches and triumphs.
After only a few days, the Bombay Chronicle wrote of Saklatvala:
“Whether he is at a tea-party or a reception, a Labour meeting or a
public demonstration of thousands, he avails himself of every
opportunity to drill his fresh and dynamic views into the hearts of his
audience with his magnificent oratory, of which, indeed, there is no
parallel in India today. Wherever he goes he enlivens the atmosphere
and electrifies his hearers.”
He addressed big Muslim rallies (over 6,000 attended a meeting addressed by
him in Bombay) and, while he advised them that the Muslims of the world
should be united and should call a world conference every year, he also
stressed the need for all peoples in India, both Hindu and Muslim, to unite as
Indians and to live harmoniously together. As a Parsi and being neither Hindu
nor Muslim, he was in a strong position to call for such unity. He addressed
meetings in Hindi, Gujarati and English and was equally eloquent in all three
languages.
A few days after his arrival he visited Navsari, his birthplace, and the freedom
of the municipality was conferred upon him in a moving ceremony. In
expressing his thanks, Saklatvala said that a life of simplicity was with him a
religion and it was not ordained for him to receive honours. He said he was
proud to be a citizen of Navsari that had given to India a Dadabhai Naoroji
and a Tata. After the ceremony he went to the Lunsieni Maidan and addressed
a huge gathering of thousands there. On his arrival in Navsari he had once
again been presented with garlands and bouquets; he went, before attending
any public meetings, to call on his Aunt, Mrs Bamji (his mother’s sister) and
presented her with all the garlands and flowers as a token of his respect and
affection.
364
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
This is but one instance of the profound family feeling that Father always had,
even for those members of the family whose conduct in private or public
affairs ran contrary to his own political or even moral convictions. He was,
after all, the only socialist in a clan of highly successful capitalists, but he loved
the clan nevertheless; he loved the uncle who, in his eyes, had wronged his
father. While he deplored the concepts of the family business, he still loved the
individual members of the family as his kin— these were bonds which nothing
could sever.
About three miles from Navsari, in a small village named Eru, a patriotic
young man, Mr Nathubhai, was conducting a night school for children of the
depressed classes. Saklatvala asked to see it and was taken there at 10pm.
There he found 43 boys and 30 girls studying together. He learned from them
that they earned one or two annas a day and depended upon philanthropic
citizens for slates and books.
The Bombay Chronicle reported:
“Full of that milk of human kindness which distinguishes him he
chatted with the boys and advised them to become thoroughly educated.
He specially exhorted the girls to study and learn to be worthy mothers
and to bring up a race of patriots with a burning love for humanity. He
told them all that in education lay their salvation— moral, material and
mental. He then advised them to teach children when they grew up just
as their teacher was teaching them without expectation of material
reward but out of love of service to humanity.”
Saklatvala’s relationship with the Indian National Congress was a complicated
one. He fully upheld their objective of freedom for India, but did not agree
with their methods of obtaining it. And, of course, he disagreed profoundly
with Gandhiji on many issues. The two men met during Saklatvala’s visit. They
also exchanged letters, which were published by the Communist Party in
December 1927.
Saklatvala fired the first salvo on March 8th, writing from Bombay:
“Dear Comrade Gandhi, We are both erratic enough to permit each
other to be rude in order to freely express oneself correctly, instead of
getting lost in artificiality of phraseology... Let us understand, openly,
whether the ‘Charka’ movement is or is not an attack upon machinery,
upon physical sciences, upon material progress. If it is so, then it is a
365
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
most damaging disservice to our country and must be stopped. If it is
not so, then your ardent followers ought not to be allowed to believe
that it is so... The methods adopted in other countries of organising
labour and peasantry and guiding and leading the workers in factories
or farms to obtain their rights, have produced far more benevolent and
efficient results in human life than the two-annas-a-day charka
movement will ever do...
“Now, where do we stand with regard to the primary object of the
charka movement and its position today? Are you shifting your limit of
2 years to 4 or to 20 or to 200 years? Do you suggest that a rise of 2
annas a day say of the whole population is a process which is going to
drive the British out of this country?... Why do you persevere in hand-
spinning with such superstitious adherence, and why not introduce
alongside of it other more profitable handicrafts...? You are not teaching
people to wear more clothes than before, your own example would
rather lead them to wear less. At the same time you are teaching more
people to produce clothes...
“The acuteness with which the class war operates upon the wage-
earners of India is more than in most of the advanced European
countries, where, thanks to the organisation of labour, several of the
cruelties of class war are being moved. Just look at the palatial houses of
any mill-owner of Bombay, Ahmedabad, Nagpur or Calcutta and look at
the disgraceful and diabolical one-room tenements of the workers,
devoid of all furniture, appointments at any embellishments. Such acute
difference between dwelling conditions of the rich and the poor does not
exist in Great Britain, America or any part of Europe where labour is
organised...
“That is not all. The class war in India is murderous and more cruelly
murderous because it is infanticidal... You will find that the mortality of
infants under 12 months of age among the rich would be about 90 per
1000, whereas the infantile mortality in the municipal wards where the
factory workers live would be from 600 to even 800 per 1000. Such a
damnable attack upon human life is unknown in those countries where
the working classes are organised.
“To defend such a position is criminal, but for anybody to go even
366
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
further and to throw dust in the eyes of the world that class war is not
operating acutely in India is inhuman and monstrous, and I have always
felt that through your misguided sentimentality, you have preferred to
be one of them. Class war is there and will continue to be there until any
successful scheme of communism abolishes it. But in the meantime, not
to struggle against its evil effects from day to day is a doctrine which
cannot appeal to any genuine humanitarian.
“...You emphatically argued that the charka movement was making
organisation. I emphatically deny it... Then we come to the
psychological value of the movement. This WAS great. It BEGAN well...
But why create a psychology if you do not intend to mobilise the spirit so
created...?
“Whatever may be the feelings of some of your admirers, I hope you and
I are both agreed that we are both very common and ordinary persons...
If your purpose is to give your share in the national and political work,
your approach to the people should be on terms of absolute equality and
your task must be to inspire confidence in them.
“From this point of view you must stop allowing people to address you
as a Mahatma. I have heard from your many friends that you have never
wished the word to be used... You can easily refuse to receive letters so
addressed, and you can easily refuse to attend functions where you are
advertised with this appellation. You have only to express your wish
publicly instead of whispering about it to a few friends and the thing
would be done...
“You should rigorously stop crowds and processions of human beings,
specially poor women and little children, passing you with folded hands
and downcast eyes. Once you create this abject submission of man to
man, no wonder that you should yourself despair of obtaining civil
disobedience from your followers...
“Then there is one thing that I witnessed at Yeotmal which has hurt me
greatly... Your work regarding the removal of untouchability is grand in
its aspiration, and is not bad in its success as it is generally carried on.
However, I strongly object to your permitting my countrymen and
countrywomen to touch your feet and put their fingers in their eyes.
Such touchability appears to be more damnable than untouchability,
367
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
and I would sooner wish that two persons did not touch each other than
that any one human being should be touched by another in the way in
which you were touched.
“The depressed classes were subject to a sort of general disability, but
this new phase of a man of the depressed class worshipping the feet of
his deliverer is a more real individual depression and degradation of life,
and however much you misunderstand me, I must call upon you to stop
this nonsense... You are ruining the mentality and the psychology of
these villagers for another generation or two... Politically this career of
yours is ruinous, and from a humanitarian point of view its
degenerating influence appears to me to be a moral plague...
“I have put down my candid thoughts in the above paragraphs not with
a view to disburden my soul of personal grievance... What I am really
attempting to do is to disburden your mind of a lot of confusion and
contradiction and to demand from you, in the name of all sufferers not
merely that you stop adding to their sufferings but that you come
forward and live with us as a brother with brothers, and work with us in
a manner and form in which we all consider your service to be most
valuable and you to be most fitted...
“What I want of you is that you be a good old Gandhi, put on an
ordinary pair of khaddar trousers and coat and come out and work with
us in the ordinary way. Come and organise with us... our workers, our
peasants, our youths, not with a metaphysical sentimentality but with a
set purpose, a clear-cut and well-defined object and by methods such as
by experience are making success for all human beings.
“Instead of developing the vanity of making under-clothing or over-
clothing as a primary object of administration, as an ordinary rough-
and-tumble man, making your food and clothing secondary and
unimportant items that should not require any special thought, you
would still be able to undo great mistakes of the past, to make up for the
damage done to India and other Asiatic countries, and be one of the
successful workers for India as other successful leaders have actually
worked for their country...
“Therefore, before I go, I should like you to get up one morning as from
a dream and to say, ‘Yes,’ and many of us can soon be put together in a
368
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
good team, and set about putting an end to so many deplorable
conditions of life in India, about which none of us has any doubt.
“I remain, Yours fraternally, Shapurji Saklatvala”
[Editor’s note: the charka was a spinning wheel for producing khadi
(homespun cloth) which Gandhi extolled as a symbolic and practical means of
boycotting British-made textiles and furthering the economic independence of
the poor].
Gandhi’s reply was published as an open letter in the Bombay Daily Mail of
March 17th (he explained in a later letter that he did not at the time have an
address to which he could send a personal reply— though I would have thought
that a man of reasonable resourcefulness would have been able to find one).
Not surprisingly, he did not get up one morning as from a dream and say ‘yes.’
Gandhi wrote:
“‘Comrade’ Saklatvala [I think the fact that he puts this form of address
in inverted commas suggests that he preferred his normal title of
Mahatma to the unaccustomed one of Comrade, used by Saklatvala] is
dreadfully in ernest. His sincerity is transparent. His sacrifices are great.
His passion for the poor is unquestioned. I have therefore given his
fervent, open appeal to me that close attention which that of a sincere
patriot and humanitarian must command. But in spite of all my desire
to say ‘yes’ to his appeal, I must say ‘no’ if I am to return sincerity for
sincerity...”
The two men had further correspondence dealing mainly with Gandhiji’s
organisation of the workers of Ahmedabad, which he kept outside the All India
Trade Union Congress. Needless to say, neither of them ever came any closer
to agreement on their disparate methods of bettering the lot of the Indian
people.
Saklatvala knew that for him openly to criticise a man revered by millions as a
Mahatma was inviting his own unpopularity; but, on the whole, he was
admired for his candour even by Gandhi’s ardent followers and earned the
approbation of many who, like himself, abhorred the ‘holy man’s’ approach to
matters mundane. Neither their exchange of letters nor their personal meeting
brought them any nearer to agreement. Saklatvala continued to believe that
Gandhi’s concept of the struggle for freedom was, in fact, helping to maintain
the British grip of the country— he felt he was playing into the hands of the
369
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
British.
When the two men met and discussed their differences face-to-face in
Yeotmal, there was no rapprochement, and although before their talks there
had been much speculation and interest shown by the press, neither of them
said much about their meeting. Saklatvala was, no doubt, extremely
disappointed, because he seems always to have hoped that Gandhi would put
his undoubted powers of leadership into a united effort and that he would
promote a movement more practical than the promotion of spinning. It was
unrealistically optimistic ever to envisage being able to persuade Gandhi to his
way of approaching the problem of imperialism.
How distressed he would have been to see that the policies of the Indian
National Congress, combined with those of the British Raj and the Muslim
League, ended in the disintegration of the Indian nation, which has been so
disastrously fragmented both physically and emotionally. (Indeed, it
sometimes seems as if every man would like to set up a national frontier
around his own backyard.) How despairing he would have been to see, more
than forty years after the departure of the British, the persistence of poverty
and illiteracy and an ever- widening gulf between the various religious factions,
still savagely spilling each other’s blood in their so-called service of God.
We will never know if the communist creed as recommended by Saklatvala
would have brought greater or lesser happiness, but certainly the policies
which he deplored have not brought the prosperity and peace that national
liberation should have bestowed upon the people. But the wealthy are born
with their hands in the pockets of the poor, and will never allow them to
prosper; and man’s greed will outlast any man’s creed. Though I suppose it is
better that the plunderers are now at least Indian plunderers— there might be
some consolation in that for the down-trodden drudges of free India.
Experience has taught us, too, that so-called communist states provide all too
fertile a soil in which tyranny and torture can flourish— so there is certainly no
real grounds for believing that the introduction of a distorted communism into
India would have produced anything better. Surely, Christ did not envisage
that his advocacy of brotherly love would result in the Inquisition and the
burning at the stake of one human being by another; and neither did Marx
envisage the possibility of a Stalin rising in a society following his version of
brotherly love; but man’s cruelty is not so easily conquered— it is, like a weed,
370
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
an indomitable survivor.
While Saklatvala was in India, the seventh annual session of the All India
Trade Union Congress took place in Delhi on March 12th and 13th. Saklatvala
had, of course, been closely associated with the movement even before its
inception and he was, as a visitor, invited to address the Congress. There were
already deep divisions and dissentions within the trade union movement, and
it was reported in the press that the meeting was attended largely by the right
wing of the movement. The Bombay Chronicle reported that the only fighting
speech was made by Comrade Saklatvala.
In a letter to the editor of the Bombay Chronicle, Saklatvala put forward his
proposals for the education of the peasants and agricultural workers in the
villages in India. He wrote:
“Thousands of students responded to the call of the Congress in 1921...
with determination and devotion to become life-long servants of our
dear Motherland. This call of the Congress was, indeed, the call of
Comrade Gandhi endorsed and accepted by Congress.
“I was at that time yearning to come to India to take my share of the
work, but my financial and other circumstances did not permit. I felt
that the call was a good one, and the inspiration underlying it was a
noble one, but the programme ahead of it was a vacant one.
“The great need of our country is to organise the peasants as well as the
industrial workers, to inspire them with a confidence and a belief in
themselves, and to arouse a political and class consciousness within
them, so that they may be able to free themselves from their burdens
instead of being victims to them under mis-belief of religious or civic
virtues. This task cannot be performed by book education, or by
thumping oratory of a travelling agitator...
“I wanted all our educated and devoted nationalist students to be
mobilised into an organisation, galvanised by a nationalist fervour, and
at the same time tempered with a personal humility. I want them even
now in a methodical and in an organised manner to enter agricultural
villages, factories, mines, dockyards, railway yards, and every place of
human activity, as bona fide workers within those activities.
“I do not want them to go as external and superior preachers or welfare
workers or advisers, but I want them to take their place with our
37i
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
oppressed classes as one of them on terms of equality, doing the same
hard and unpleasant work, eking out the same precarious existence, and
suffering the same indignities and degradation of human life and
human rights. Then they should under the guidance of a central
organisation for all India, lead the peasants and the ignorant workers
onto a path of self-assertion, and of defence against the might of the
privileged class, and then of demands for the ultimate rights of their
own class.
“India has about 6 lakhs of villages [i.e. 600,000], and about 20,000
places of modern industrial organisations. A band of 70,000 young
educated men and 30,000 young educated women, whom Comrade
Gandhi’s inspiring call makes available, could launch out on a gigantic
programme of an Indian revival and produce results within 12 months...
“And now my last word. Can we not give up the garlands and the
bouquets which in their nature and by traditional usage are an offering?
How I wish that before I go, we offer to our guests little red flags to be
worn as button-holes to serve as an emblem of equality and service. Let
the red flag as a ground work of international brotherhood bear upon it
different emblems like the Charka, or the Hindu Trident (Trishul) or the
Moslem Crescent, or even the royal crown when the Liberals and
moderates organise their meetings, but let us fall in a march with the
world that is seeking for justice, equality, and national and international
unity, or all put in one [word] ‘Bolshevism’.”
During his visit, the British government was sending Indian troops to fight
their battles in China and opposition to this was another point of common
agreement between Saklatvala and Indian Congress leaders. When Saklatvala
went earlier than had been expected to Delhi, it was largely to discuss this
issue with Indian leaders.
On 28th January, a mass meeting of over 5000 was convened in the Queens
Gardens in Delhi to protest against the use of Indian troops in China. Pandit
Motilal Nehru was in the chair and introduced Saklatvala to the assembly, and
when Saklatvala rose to speak he was given an enthusiastic ovation. He said
the meeting was called in order to tell the people of China that Indian forces
were sent to China against the will of the Indian people and despite the strong
disapproval of the Indian nation, which was, however, powerless to prevent it.
372
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
In moving a resolution expressing the sympathy of the citizens of Delhi with
the Chinese people, Mr Iyengar asked why the blood of Indians should be shed
for depriving the freedom of China, which was not an enemy of India.
He said, “It is not because India is near to China that Indian troops are being
sent, but because India is a subject country. In other countries, the opinion of
the people was taken before sending their troops out. In India they were
debarred from even expressing their opinion.”
Maulana Mahomed Ali, winding up the debate, said he would lay himself on
the rails to stop a train laden with Indian troops for China, and he advised
others to do the same.
Early in February, after his visit to Nagpur, Saklatvala went to Karachi, where
a ceremonial welcome awaited him and a procession formed at the railway
station and accompanied him through beflagged streets. A public meeting,
attended by several thousand people, was packed to such an extent that some
doors and windows were damaged. The following morning Saklatvala went to
the Labour headquarters; in the afternoon he held a press conference; at 5pm
he gave a talk to a gathering of political leaders of varying shades of opinion;
then at 6.15pm, under the auspices of the Railway Union, he gave another
lecture; later on the same evening he addressed a vast crowd on the Idgah
Maidan, decrying that the lives of Indian labourers were no better than the
lives of beasts.
Thus he worked every day during this exhausting but no doubt exhilarating
tour of his country, with a vigour undiminished by the heat and the size of the
meetings he was constantly addressing.
A mass meeting was held in Congress House, primarily to protest against
sending Indian troops to fight the Chinese, with whom, it was stressed, the
people of India had no quarrel and certainly no cause for war. As always,
Saklatvala was greeted with a hearty ovation. It was reported that “his speech
was full of wit which threw his audience into roars of laughter while his cogent
arguments transposed them into serious and thoughtful mood.” He said
events had moved so swiftly in China that they could not hold too many
meetings to protest strongly against what was going on:
“Chinamen do not demand Chinese judges and magistrates in Great
Britain to protect Chinamen’s interests. China does not send battalions
to Liverpool where Chinamen abound to protect them, or to London
373
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
where Chinamen sell their goods, (laughter) ...India should therefore
show to the world the unconstitutional method adopted by Britain in
sending Indian troops to China against the wishes of the Indian people...
It was a great abuse of power, and showed that Britain was a danger to
the world...”
It had been claimed that the intentions of the British were essentially peaceful
and that they only wanted the right to trade in China. Saklatvala contended
that America sold goods in India, but they did not want to send their Viceroy
to India. Japan sold more goods in India than India wanted, but they did not
send their Commander-in-Chief. Chinamen were sending goods to England,
but they did not send Chinese battalions. But to send troops to sell goods was
characteristic of the British government— he did not mean the British nation
but the British government. The methods of selling goods by the British were
so unrighteous that they needed gunboats to sell their goods, (laughter)
He asked, “Is not Great Britain selling goods in France, or Italy or America?
Why does she not send her troops to those countries also to protect her
merchants?” (laughter) India must demand most emphatically the return of
Indian troops from China. India, he claimed, had been trading with China long
before the British knew how to trade with that country; the Chinese would
treat Indian merchants as brothers, while the British would not allow Indian
merchants into their white men’s clubs and gymkhanas.
Having dealt with the question of Indian troops in China, Saklatvala addressed
the meeting on more general social and political problems and explained, as
he explained at all his meetings, the principles of communism.
Similar meetings were held in all the major cities, and Saklatvala was received
wherever he went with great affection and acclaim; it was, I think, probably
the most emotionally demanding and rewarding period of his whole political
life. As always he travelled extensively and tirelessly, giving meetings that
sometimes did not start until after to at night because he was speaking in so
many different places. The tour went on until April 9th.
On the eve of his departure, at a farewell meeting in Bombay, Dr Deshmukh in
the chair said:
“The other day, the Parsi community of Bombay honoured him as their
representative [cheers]. I say we citizens of Bombay look upon him as
the pride of the city, [applause] All India will be proud to claim him as
374
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
their best son and even the whole world will do him honour as an
international hero, [continued applause] I hope it will not be long before
Comrade Saklatvala again sets his foot on Indian soil.”
Amid deafening applause Saklatvala rose to reply and allowed himself a rare
expression of personal feeling. He said,:
There are certain moments in a man’s life, which are more difficult than the
normal ones. These are the moments when emotion is more overpowering
than reason. At this moment, I also do feel a little overwhelmed, not with the
thought that you have met with rejoicings that at last I am going back [in spite
of the hurt of his impending departure, he could not resist a joke], but with the
thought that you have met to encourage and assure me that I am of you, I am
one of you and I shall ever remain inseparably with you... I feel confidence, not
the confidence of a blustering politician but the confidence of a hopeful
brother...”
In answer to a question about the murder of Swami Shradhandji, he said he
had written to Professor Indra, the late Swami’s son, asking him to send a
petition to the High Court asking pardon for the murderer of Swamiji. He said:
“India should be the first country in the world where we should abolish
that savage system of capital punishment. I don’t believe in hanging and
execution. The system of execution is, according to me, responsible for
the system of murder. I don’t believe that execution is either sensible,
scientific, nor a deterrent.”
Concluding, Saklatvala said, “Though I am leaving you, I do not feel like
leaving.” He was then garlanded, amidst what the papers described as “sky-
rending applause.”
On 9th April 1927, surrounded by throngs of emotionally charged admirers,
Saklatvala sailed from the shores of India for the last time, away from the land
of his fathers, from which he was to be forever exiled by the democratic
government of his children’s motherland. Had he known at that poignant
moment that the British government was never again to allow him to return to
the land of his birth, his leave-taking would have been more heartrending still.
But I will speak of that later.
During his many visits to Bombay, he had naturally spent as much time as his
overcrowded schedule would allow with his sister. She had been very upset to
learn that none of Shapurji’s five children had been initiated into the Parsi
375
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
faith. She, as all the rest of the family, were still ardent and strict followers of
the Zoroastrian religion. She persuaded him that, whatever his personal
beliefs, he did not have the right to withhold from his children their
participation in the religion of their forefathers.
So one of the first things he did on his return to London was to arrange for the
Parsi ceremony of a Navjote to be performed on all of us. (It was to be only the
third time this ceremony had been performed in England, the first time being
only the year before, on the son of one of Father’s close friends). Fresh
pomegranate leaves were required for some of the ritual and these were
generously supplied by Kew Gardens, to whom my father, resourceful as ever,
applied for help. He wrote down all the prayers in Roman script and
proceeded to teach us every morning; we were not released to go to school
until we had learnt the day’s quota by heart— and there were therefore some
very fraught and tearful mornings, for to be late for school was unthinkable.
For my part, the fear of unpunctuality put me in such a panic that the learning
of the unfamiliar words became a nightmare, but Father was relentless, stern
and unyielding. We all lined up at the bottom of his bed, and were only
allowed to depart as each one of us recited the required portion of our
devotions. Being the youngest (and, I fear, the most stupid), I was always the
last to leave, and standing there in solitude, watching a clock as relentless as
Father, was enough to add to my natural nervousness. But eventually the task
was done and we were all word perfect.
Three priests were to officiate at the two ceremonies; one for my sister and
myself, and one for my three brothers. But we were taken through the prayers
and taught the significance and details of the ceremony by a most kindly and
gentle priest who became a close friend to us all, R.R. Desai. It was during this
period of preparation that Mr Desai and his house-keeper, Mrs Neal, were
invited to dinner. Mother had the electric oven and all the burners going full
blast, cooking an elaborate meal. Father, as usual when expecting guests, had
put on all the lights in the house and switched on the electric radiators.
This all proved too much for the immature electric system and, while we were
entertaining this apostle of light, the whole house was suddenly plunged into
darkness, the cooker and the radiators gave up the struggle, and the evening
was threatened with disaster. But in those days, help was quickly at hand, and
a telephone call to the electric company brought immediate succour; the
376
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
service was restored in time to finish the cooking, a concave and soggy cake
being the only lasting victim of the hiatus in supply.
Perhaps the disaster of the lights that evening should have warned Father of
impending doom. Our ceremonies were to be held in Caxton Hall,
Westminster, on 22nd July before a large audience and with many pressmen
present.
Father was to be hauled over the coals by the Communist Party for
participating in a religious ceremony, contrary to the tenets of communism.
Why had he not asked their permission first, they demanded. He told them
frankly that he knew they would refuse permission, that he had certain family
obligations which had to be met and that he had therefore gone ahead with
this private and family ceremony and only told them about it when it was too
late to stop it. It had never been presented to us as a religious undertaking.
Father made it plain that he believed neither in prayer nor in any barrier-
building, religious ceremonial, but he said Ali Fui (his sister) would be very
unhappy if we did not have it, that it did us no harm and made her happy; it
was in that spirit that the service was conducted. But I don’t think the die-
hards of the Communist Party ever forgave him.
At the time of the offending ceremony, Saklatvala was recuperating after an
operation for a severe and persistent throat infection, no doubt due to the
strain and over-exertion of the Indian tour; he was to endure failing health for
much of the rest of the year. The operation was performed in a nursing home
very close to our house by an eminent Hindu surgeon, K.M. Pardhy. Father
had been having treatment there for some time after his return from India.
The matron and nurses were all very fond of Father and were always most
kind to him and to all of us. They treated both my sister and myself during our
childhood. (And when Father had his fatal heart attack in 1936, it was Matron
who was first on the scene.)
Dr Fram Gotla, our family doctor and a lifelong friend of Father, issued a
statement to the press saying, “Indeed, you can tell him and his friends that he
sacrificed his health for his work and that he must moderate his programme of
toil, for only by reasonable care will he keep the health he as regained.”
Photographs of Father at the Navjote ceremony show him with his neck
bandaged, and on photographs taken during the whole of this period, he
appears thinner and very drawn and obviously ill. Indeed, he himself did not
377
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
actually participate in the ceremony at all, but remained seated in an armchair
throughout, due to his convalescent state.
Nonetheless, Saklatvala was to be as active as ever during this period. On May
Day 1927 he and Harry Pollitt addressed a mass meeting in Hyde Park,
followed by another in the Albert Hall in the evening; on 12th June he, Pollitt
and other Communist leaders were at a rally in Trafalgar Square. On 19th
June he addressed a crowd of 1200 people in Crumlin, where he was
accompanied by my mother (she did go with him from time to time, but I
think she went with him on this occasion because he was not well enough to
make such a journey on his own). But throughout his indisposition he only
missed one week of House of Commons debates, when he also had to cancel all
his public engagements; this was announced in the press on 8th July.
In spite of the little lapse from grace over our Navjote, the Communist Party of
Great Britain at its annual conference (held in another Caxton Hall, in Salford,
Lancashire) showed its appreciation of the great contribution Saklatvala had
made to the work of the party during his Indian visit:
“Comrade Saklatvala toured India on behalf of the Party during the first
months of the year, getting a magnificent reception everywhere, and
advocating in particular that the National Movement should adopt a
programme of demands for the workers and peasants. His controversy
with M.K. Gandhi over the question of the independent class
organisation for the workers received wide publicity. His visit
undoubtedly did much to stimulate the movement for an All India
Workers’ and Peasants’ Party, a highly important field for Indian
Communists...”
Alas, the communists were not the only body politic to appreciate the
importance of Saklatvala’s impact on the jewel in the imperialist crown. On
5th September 1927 it was announced that the government had cancelled the
endorsement for India on Saklatvala’s passport. Of course, permission for him
to go to India in 1926 had been granted only after considerable delay and with
great reluctance.
The effects of his travels in India must have caused the Secretary of State for
India to wish that his journey had never been sanctioned. It so happened that
the Viceroy, accompanied by Earl Winterton, went on a tour of Indian cities
during the period of Saklatvala’s visit; and the citizens of some of the most
378
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
important centres turned out in their thousands to welcome Saklatvala, while
they frequently boycotted any civic welcome accorded to the Viceroy. This
must indeed have caused those eminent personages not a little chagrin. One
might even venture to think that a certain element of pique might have
entered into their decision to prevent Saklatvala from repeating his triumph
ever again.
Of recent years we have heard a great deal of criticism of various communist
regimes, for their disregard of human rights in refusing to allow their
countrymen to leave their homeland to journey to distant lands with which
they had no natural links; it has always been implied that communism was the
only system to withhold human rights in this way. But the capitalist
governments of Britain, both Conservative and Labour, never restored my
father’s human right to return to the land in which he was born. Human rights
are not safe under any political regime, and no political system is blameless in
this area.
MR. SAKLATVALA, M.P.
PERMISSION TO VISIT INDIA
REFUSED.
The endorsement {or India of the pnasport
held by Mr. Saktatvaja. M.P., has been c*n-
csIM by th* Foreign Office.
Intimation of the cancellation was sent to
Mr. SuktatMla In the following term*! — “Sir,
with reference to tli« endorsement on your
ptisport granted on December 21. 10i«. I am
directed by Secretary. Sir Aut 1 *n Chamber-
lain. to inlorm voo Out the validity ol yout
passport for India has been cancelled. The
lee lor tin* endorwmetrt can be refunded to
>*va on your returning the passport to this
office for cancellation o! the endorsement.”
Mr. Saklatvala stated on Saturday: M I
would merely point out that in addition to
being a member of the British Parliament I
am olso *o Indian-born subject of Indian
parents.”
The cancellation of th* endorsement means.
It was stated In diplomatic quarter* in tendon,
on Saturday, that although he l» a native of
India, Mr. Saklatvala will not b* allowed to
enter that country. The cam of the children
who v«t* refuted passport* foe Russia by the
Foreign Office Mime time ago, tt was pointed
out. Is entirely different, a» tbe Russian autho-
rities were atntlouB for tho children to visit the
country, and one* ttoy had left England there
was no difficulty in their way. As to Mr.
Saklatvala. K is at the desire of the Indian
authorities themselves that the pa report hasbeen
cancelled. No vim la necessary lor tourneys to
India, and a special endorsement of a passport
must be obtained. It ia this which baa been
cancelled.
Clipping: The Times, 5th September 1927
The fact that Father was primarily an internationalist did not in any way
diminish the intense love he had for India; indeed, it was his desire to free his
379
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
own people from imperialism which was the spur that led him to desire
freedom for all other peoples also. To hold him as an enforced and permanent
exile from his country and from his family who lived there was a cruel
transgression against human rights and liberty and one that cannot be
justified or forgiven. He was a ‘refusenik’ in this country under a capitalist, not
a communist, regime. It was, without doubt, the greatest hurt that was ever
inflicted upon him— a shameful act by shameless men.
While Saklatvala was in India, the League Against Imperialism was founded
on 7th April 1927 at a conference in Brussels, with Fenner Brockway as its first
international chairman; but on Brockway’s return to England, the ILP
disapproved of his close association with the League, which they thought
(probably correctly) was communist-inspired. So Brockway resigned the chair
and James Maxton replaced him. Saklatvala was elected to its executive
committee later in the same year and continued to be actively involved with
that body. In August he participated in a conference of the League in Cologne.
In 1927, the Soviet Union celebrated the 10th anniversary of the October
Revolution and several specially invited guests, Saklatvala among them, spent
several days in the USSR. Saklatvala was favourably impressed with the
progress that had been made since his earlier visit in 1923. During the
celebratory programme, he and William Gallagher addressed vast crowds in
Red Square. In his address, Saklatvala alluded to the hypocrisy of the so-called
democratic system of capitalist governments.
“I sit in Westminster,” he proclaimed,
“making laws for India, and, as an Indian, I am the despised slave of
that Parliament and under the orders of an autocratic and idiotic
Minister like Chamberlain, I am now told not to go back to my own
country. That is parliamentary democracy.”
Later in his speech, appealing to the visitors from all over the world, he said:
“Ask you friends now to realise what we have witnessed in Leningrad,
what we have witnessed in Moscow and other towns of the Soviet
Republics, which probably our Russian comrades have not realised— it
is a new humanity, an altogether new character of freedom... This is
success conferred upon the world after our talking and singing about
socialism for the last two generations. I appeal to you all, my Comrades,
whether you go back to China, or Great Britain, or Africa or America, to
380
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
carry with you that great image of the real and truly free men, the real
and truly emancipated women and the truly cared for children here...
“In that spirit, Comrades, I beg you to go back to your countries, and
wish, morning, noon and night for greater success for Sovietism in the
Soviet Republic and let us not only wish and pass resolutions, but let us
act and work in our countries in such a manner that within the next two
or three years we will come back together again as free citizens of our
Soviets to this, the first Soviet Republic.”
The celebrations included what has now become a familiar feature of Russian
life, a parade in Red Square, with cavalrymen from all over the USSR riding
past. A play lasting two days was performed, showing all the achievements of
the Soviets during the ten years they had been governing the country, and it
was broadcast on all the networks throughout the Union. On his return to
England, Saklatvala told a Sunday Worker correspondent, “Amazing results
have been achieved since my last visit in 1923, but if I attempted to describe
them, I should probably be charged with exaggeration.”
It is interesting to note in passing that in Battersea Saklatvala enjoyed solid
support from his Catholic constituents, despite the fact that it was always said
that the Soviet Union made it impossible for Christians to worship freely.
Three members of the Irish delegation to the Moscow celebrations wrote to
Saklatvala on their return, proclaiming, “...I was surprised to find the churches
open, because previously I had read the articles in the capitalist papers. I
personally attended the Church of Sts Peter and Paul, for I had been told that
the Red Army soldiers were keeping the people from going to church. I found
the service going on and the church packed with people. We talked with the
priests who told us that they had more freedom than under the Tsar.” Similar
views were expressed by other Catholic members of the Irish Delegation to the
USSR.
Despite his travels and various activities, Saklatvala continued to play his
usual active role in House of Commons debates. Although most of 1926 had
been taken up with the General Strike, the miners’ strike and Saklatvala’s
battle against the Emergency Powers Act, he still had not neglected the affairs
of India. It has always been asserted by those who fought for the liberation of
India, that Great Britain pursued a policy of ‘divide and rule.’ In a debate on
India on 20th July 1926, Saklatvala said:
381
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
“...I at once admit that, ...as a native of India, am not standing in this
House in a very happy position at the present juncture. I quite admit the
different positions of the various political sections in India, especially
the Swaraj [Independence] Party, for which I have a greater partiality
than for any other section; I do admit, as a native of the country, the
most deplorable state of affairs with regard to these conflicts which are
arising out of religion...
“I myself saw the remark in the Viceroy’s speech with regard to the very
emphatic denial on the part of His Excellency as to any share in the
exploitation of this religious movement, either by the Viceroy or by the
officials generally. That may be quite true and I do not take it as a
hypothesis, but admit it as a fact, that the Viceroy, as he has gone out
there with a fair and open mind, would certainly be absolutely innocent
of any such desire or any such complicity. But it cannot be said
throughout that there is no ground even for a reasonable suspicion in
this direction...
“I was in Newcastle-on-Tyne in Easter week— doing my wild
propaganda work, as the Home secretary might put it— and I went to the
Independent Labour Party Conference... A morning paper with a
notorious title had an editorial article which I passed on to the late
Minister of Health at the Conference. It deliberately takes credit for the
cleverness with which the British officials have separated the solidarity
between Hindus and Mohammedans in India. It claims full credit for
undoing, within a very short period, the work that was done by Gandhi
and [Chittaranjan] Das on sentimental grounds.
“Not only that, but these are almost the sentences in the article in which
they say that though it may seem bad news, an intelligent Englishman
who knows the real situation in India will look on it as the best news
that has come to this country for the last three years. It deliberately puts
it forward that peace between Hindus and Mohammedans would mean
the end of the British rule in India, and they say that, not only is there
no peace today, but they feel thankful that there is no hope of peace and
that every Britisher rejoices in his heart. I commend that article to the
noble Lord...
“I do not take the view, as my Indian friends do, that Indians in
382
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
association with this Empire will ever receive the treatment and the
same rights as blood and flesh citizens of the Dominions associated with
Great Britain, and while putting forward this false political title that you
are all British citizens and you are a British Empire, three hundred
million of those British citizens are to be treated in a manner in which
not a man, woman, child or dog in this country would agree to be
treated.
“I again press that point that if you call yourself an Indo-British Empire
and candidly and frankly put forward a sort of British standard and a
sort of Indian standard, which as long as it is in your power to impose
on India you will insist on imposing, you will perhaps take away from
the people many inconsistent and illogical acts of the government.
“...On a previous occasion I put to the House the position that the
responsible British government in India, in which the Indians
themselves have no part, were the largest employers in the world of
human labour, and I put it, and I repeat it, that the G of I are employing
hundreds of thousands of human beings at less than £3 a month... and
that the same government had in front of it a report by a British official
pointing out that the cost of living of the lowest type of labourer was
nearer £4... My efforts have failed in asking the Under-Secretary of
State for India to put forward the actual figures of these low wages...
“The government have set the standard, and the industrialists have
followed it... The association of India with Great Britain may be
perpetuated as the greatest blight and the greatest curse to human
society, and especially to the working classes of Great Britain; or the
association between Great Britain and India, in a spirit of international
labour co-operation, can be turned into a great advanced movement for
the civilisation of Europe itself and the salvation of Great Britain
herself...
“India under British protection... is becoming a country that produces
coal fields, jute and cotton mills and iron works in rivalry with this
country... you will have to tell your citizens... that their trade is in
danger unless the cost of production goes lower and lower. That is
exactly what is happening in the coal trade... The reality of life is that
here in British India, under the protection of the British Army and Navy,
383
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
with the full blessing of the British nation, there are miners employed at
eight pence and nine pence a day underground to suffer.
“The conditions of this country will not be improved by lowering the
standard of living of the workers. It is not a rotten country that wins the
race but a united country. The real cure is for the British rulers of India
to say, ‘We are British. We shall remain British. We shall look at human
good and human standards from a British point of view, and if we
cannot afford to do it, we shall be honest and march out, bag and
baggage.’
“I appeal to my Swarajist friends, to Hindus and Mohammedans, to this
Committee and to the government of India, to study the problem
seriously and to clearly visualise that it was a mistaken policy to stop
western Bolshevism, socialism or Labour politics from entering the
Eastern countries. My Swarajist friends made that mistake. They
neglected the policy of relying upon the strength of the working classes
and upon the agricultural workers, and organising them and looking to
them for support in their political struggles...
“If they will forget their religious differences, as the people of Europe
forget them, in the mass, and realise that the mass of the workers must
form themselves more closely into a united family, and not look upon
each other as Hindus or Mohammedans... it will be all to the good....
“We say that Bolshevism, Labour programmes, socialist programmes,
following on the general activities in the west, is the only salvation of
Indians... It is on these grounds that I appeal to the noble Lord to
remember that we are living in an age after the great civilising
revolution in Russia, and not before it, and to frame his policy
accordingly. (Laughter)
“If I may be allowed to reply to the laughter of hon members opposite, I
would say that for 150 years the government of India has been
struggling and have pretended to spread education in India, and today
there is only 7% of education in India. (Hon. member: How much of it is
there in Russia?) In the Tsarist time it amounted to 6%. In Russia the
population is largely oriental, in habit and in mentality, and while the
government of India have only been able to spread 7% of education in
India... the Russian Soviet government has been able to increase
384
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
education from 6% to 96%.”
Yet again, Saklatvala contrived to combine his cry for communism and his cry
for the freedom of the Indian people— the two main aims of his political life.
385
CHAPTER 19
Defending the Rights of Workers
Introduction of the Trades Dispute Bill, 1927.
The ploy of ‘divide and rule’ was not used only against the Indian people; in
1927 the labour movement accused the Conservative government of using it to
smash the power of the trade unions. There is no doubt that the solidarity of
the workers that had led, the year before, to the General Strike had struck their
exploiters with a somewhat hysterical fear. They now pressed the panic button
and introduced the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Bill, that led the trade
union movement to accuse them of ‘union bashing’. Sympathetic and general
strikes were to be made illegal, picketing was to be severely regulated and the
power of the group was to be diminished in favour, the government claimed,
of the power of the individual; but in practice this would mean diminished
power for the trade unions and more power to management.
For those of us who have lived through the 1980s it is an all too familiar
pattern.
It is generally said that patriotism is the love of one’s country; I prefer to
interpret it as love of one’s nation. The nation consists of all the people in the
land, the ruling class, the management class, as well as the workers who
actually produce the goods that pay for the ruling class and the management
class to live, and who provide them with the reason and the wherewithal to
perform their lucrative functions.
So the ruling and management classes spread the word that the General Strike
had put the nation in jeopardy and that therefore the people who organised it
were unpatriotic; though the workers for whom the General Strike was
supposed to bring benefit were as much a part of the nation as the ruling and
management classes. To put the lives and happiness of the productive workers
in danger was not considered unpatriotic; but to put the profit and power of
the rulers in peril was said to be unpatriotic. It is a popular belief even today. A
pity-
When the 1927 Trade Disputes Bill was introduced, the Conservative Party
386
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
published a pamphlet, ‘The Trade Dispute Bill Popularly Explained’; and a
specially convened Trade Union Defence Committee published a tract called,
‘Union-Smashing By Law— What the Tory government’s Trade Union Bill
Means.’ The labour movement realised that a national, authoritative, all-
embracing campaign was needed to fight the bill, particularly since the
government had such an overwhelming majority in the House that it needed
more than parliamentary opposition to defeat it. Propaganda against the bill
was carried on in one of the most well organised enterprises ever embarked
upon by the combined forces of labour. The introduction of the bill was treated
almost as a declaration of war against the working class.
When the Trade Disputes Bill was first introduced, Saklatvala was on the boat
returning from his Indian tour; but one of the first things he did immediately
after his return was to publish a pamphlet entitled ‘May Day 1927;
S.Saklatvala’s Message to his Constituents on his Return from India’. This
opened with the words: “I am glad to be back in my constituency of Battersea
to take up my work in Parliament on behalf of the workers, and I will do all in
my power to help in the struggle against the iniquitous Trade Union Bill.” He
went on to say:
“...I have just returned from India and can testify to the terrible
conditions under which workers, unprotected by a strong Trade Union
or Labour movement, are compelled to live. A similar state of
degradation is in store for the workers of Britain... In every district a
strong Council of Action and a Workers’ Defence Corps should be
formed to prepare the whole Labour movement for an energetic
campaign against the Bill, culminating in a real General Strike of all
workers...
“In Parliament, all the Labour MPs must be asked by their respective
constituencies to obstruct all parliamentary procedure if the Bill is not
withdrawn. It is no use fighting the Bill by pettifogging amendments...
The necessary preliminary to all those effective measures which must be
adopted if the Bill is to be fought, is the unity of the workers... Are
British workers organised to safeguard their honour and freedom or are
they to be split among themselves in spite against the Communist
movement of Russia, China or Britain?...
“I, therefore, beseech you all, men and women of Battersea, to help your
387
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
committees to get over their personal squabbles and to let the working-
class mass unite together as one family determined in its fight against
capitalism and imperialism.”
It was on May 5th 1927 that Saklatvala launched his initial and forthright
parliamentary attack against the bill when he addressed the House thus:
“To borrow the phraseology of Lord Birkenhead, I look upon this Bill as
a downright act of treason against parliamentary government... I have
said previously that it is legislation of this sort which completely
destroys what we call the majesty of the law. Every British citizen would
be a contemptible creature if, after the passing of this Bill, he held any
British law in respect or reverence, and the Tory government will find
out its mistake.”
Of course we are now long past the events of 1927; but that there is less and
less regard for the law in this country is an undoubted and sad fact— there is
little stigma attached to the breaking of many laws, and even a prison sentence
no longer automatically invokes social condemnation for certain
transgressions; indeed, people of public renown and repute drink and drive,
break motoring laws, cheat on their income tax and other taxes, and
frequently find it something to boast about. Somewhere along the line the law
has put itself in a position where it is no longer believed always to be in the
right. So perhaps Father was right in suggesting that anti-trade union, anti-
working class laws would ultimately corrode the average citizen’s respect for
the law in general.
The bill then being debated sought, among other things, to prevent trade
unions from collecting funds from its members to donate to any political
party, against the will of the individual member of the union. Saklatvala
pointed out that a clause of conscience already existed in trade union law and
any member could, as a matter of conscience, opt out of paying the political
levy. He went farther; he contended that the Prime Minister had already come
to an agreement that a clause in the bill restricting the payment of a political
levy would not be included in the final bill. “I challenge him,” he declared, “has
he not already made a pledge that the Bill will not be put on the Statute Book
unless he is permitted to withdraw the political levy clause as a last moment
peace-offering to the Labour Party. He knows quite well that he is wasting the
time of the House in making it discuss the political levy... It would be worth
388
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
seeing if they put it in after the dissentions in their own ranks.”
“Then,” he continued, “we come to the question of lock-outs. Of course, lock-
outs will not be needed after this Bill. The working man is a serf. He is a slave.
He is not going to propose terms. He is going to be dictated to. He cannot
strike; he cannot defend himself; he cannot take any counter-action in his own
defence. So the Bill itself is devised as a perpetual lock-out in the hands of the
master-class...”
One of the clauses in the bill was to make it illegal for any individual to be
punished or intimidated for not participating in a strike or other action
organised by the union; the wording ran: “Intimidation means to cause a
person to fear injury to himself... ‘injury’ includes not only physical injury, but
the fear of boycott, exposure to hatred, ridicule or contempt.”
Saklatvala was scornful of this clause:
“With regard to persecutions... I must tell the government that if ever
they put this Bill into operation and a series of actions are brought into
the courts of law on the grounds that this man said that, and that man
said this, and so on, they would not in reality be punishing those who
dared to pour contempt and ridicule upon one another, but would be
causing the whole world to pour contempt and ridicule upon Great
Britain. What a sight it would be for the nations of the world! Men and
women going up to the magistrate and saying, ‘He made faces at me,’
‘He did not speak to me,’ ‘He walked out of the assembly.’ What
nonsense to come from the Tory Party!
“We heard last Monday morning of a Minister in the present
government going to Hyde Park last Sunday. We saw a report in the
Daily Mirror— that patriotic organ— that when the national anthem was
sung, some people did not like to join in. Some did not remove their
hats, but their neighbours promptly forced them to remove them. Could
those people be put in prison?
“I do not know how far the members opposite were guilty, but after
some visionary event in my own life, I read in the newspapers that the
Tory members walked out of the House when the member for Battersea
rose to speak... Were they all to be clapped into gaol? The whole point is
so ridiculous, childish and nonsensical that the man who framed such a
law ought to be turned out and his name scratched off as a lawyer of
389
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
merit.”
One of the most important clauses in the bill declared General Strikes or
sympathetic strikes to be illegal. Saklatvala contended that it was the right of
every worker to withdraw his labour to draw attention to his grievances and no
one could make any strike, general or otherwise, illegal. He claimed the whole
law to be merely farcical:
“The Prime Minister confessed yesterday that it was the events of last
year that compelled him to change his mind [and to introduce the Bill],
but he did not explain which event. Was it the event of our Foreign
Secretary meeting his great Italian Master [he was referring to
Mussolini] on a river yacht for secret conversations? Was it the event of
the Foreign Secretary suddenly being introduced as an Honorary
member of the Italian Fascisti? Which event of last year has made this
Bill possible?
“In such a debate as this it does not behove one to take up much time. I
have only got to say this to the government. We in the Communist
movement do not believe in relief being sought by the working classes
by a mere promise that the Bill shall be repealed, though we are heart
and soul with those who desire that it shall be repealed, and we will
work towards that end... We say that the working classes cannot get
their rights so long as the capitalist class is in power. The capitalist class
believe in giving knock-out blows of the most unscrupulous character
every time they can find a chance, and the policy of the working class
must be to give them open, deliberate, knock-out blows, one after
another...
“This Bill will enlighten the proletariat and quicken them up, and then
you will see the unity between the Communists and the Trade
Unionists... You may take our word for it that settled government in this
country and so-called law and order by a gang of conspirators and
forgers is impossible. We challenge you to go ahead with this measure,
and you will see where you fall down.”
When the debate was resumed on the following day, Saklatvala again took up
the fight. He said:
“It has been made amply clear that the present series of amendments
before the Committee are making the original Bill a little worse than it
390
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
was before... I suggest seriously to the government that if the want
‘peace in our time, O Lord’, they should scrap this Bill and accept all the
eleven amendments which stand in my name.”
These eleven amendments had been published as an article in the Sunday
Worker on 13th May 1927 (see the Appendix to this chapter).
The Sunday Worker had claimed:
“The Bill is designed to abolish strikes of all descriptions, to do away
with picketing, however peaceful, to cripple the political Labour
Movement by destroying the effectiveness of the political levy, and to
divorce civil servants from Trade Union activity.”
Harry Pollitt called for a 24-hour General Strike of protest to be called as from
midnight on 1st May. The Communist Party invited the ILP to a joint attack
against the Bill and against the war being waged in China but the ILP did not
respond to the suggestion. Mass rallies were held up and down the country to
combat the threatened legislation. Saklatvala addressed a huge convocation of
workers on Wormwood Scrubs on May 29th and the usual meetings were held
in Hyde Park and Trafalgar Square.
Of course, Ramsay MacDonald had been right when he said it would be
impossible to defeat the passing of the Bill in the House and it was finally
passed at the end of July. The voice of the people had rung out loud and clear
but it had no effect on those in power.
(Strange is it not, that members of even democratically elected governments
seem all too often to be stricken with deafness— what a pity they cannot at the
same time be struck dumb).
Saklatvala’s view of the bill was expressed with his usual quiet humour when
he was making a report of his year’s work in parliament and in India. He had
tried, he said, time and time again to get the TUC General Council to help in
organising Indian trade unions (in fact, he had approached them first in 1911),
but all they did was to advise him to take what concessions the government
would give, and so in time build up the Indian movement to the level of the
British trade unions— and when they had said this, he added, we had the
spectacle of the British government bringing the TUC down to that of the
Indian unions.
39i
Appendix to Chapter 19:
Amendments to the Trade Disputes
Bill
From the Sunday Worker on 13th May 1927:
Communist Reply to Scab Bill— Saklatvala’s Amendments Which Turn
its Edge Against Capitalism
A very forcible and marked contrast with the sham amendments to the
Trade Union Bill put forward by the Labour Party leaders is shown by
the following amendments which stand in the name of Comrade
Saklatvala:
CLAUSE 1 to read: It is hereby declared that any strike having any
object calculated to improve the wages, working conditions, or social
conditions of the trade unionists, either directly or indirectly, is legal
even though the strike involves the entire membership of the trade
union movement.
It shall be legal for any body of workers to stop work to assist another
body of workers even though they themselves are not in dispute with
their own employers over any question of wages or conditions of labour.
Any provision in previous Acts declaring such action to be a breach of
contract shall be repealed.
For the purposes of the above, a trade dispute is any withdrawal of
labour of any extent whatever which, in the view of the trade union
movement, is calculated to improve the wages, working conditions, or
social conditions of its members, either directly or indirectly.
It shall also be legal for a strike to be directed against a government
which is supporting the employers in their attitude towards the Trade
Union Movement on any industrial or political question affecting the
392
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
interests of trade unionists.
CLAUSE 2 to read: No person refusing to take part in any strike
declared by his union shall be entitled to claim exemption from the
penalties imposed on him by his trade union if such penalties are a part
of the registered rules of the union.
CLAUSE 3 to read: It is hereby declared that it is lawful for one or two
persons to attend at or near a house or place where a person resides or
works for the purpose of obtaining or communicating information. The
number of people so attending shall not be limited, and the duty of the
police shall be confined to preventing any action of violence against
individuals such as are punishable by ordinary law.
CLAUSE 4 to read: It shall not be lawful to require any member of a
trade union to make any contribution to the political fund of a union
unless before the date upon which the contribution is levied a ballot has
been taken of the members of the union and a majority of the members
participating in the ballot have declared in favour of creating a political
fund. In the event of the majority of the members participating in the
ballot declaring in favour of the creation of the political fund, this
majority decision shall be binding on all members of the union until
reversed by another ballot. A ballot on the question of creating or
maintaining a political fund shall be taken every three years. Provided
that no conference of the Labour Party or any other body to which the
union is affiliated or the governing body of the union itself shall have
power to refuse to levy any member in respect of political contributions
or to refuse any member so levied the right to run for the parliamentary
panel of the union or as delegate to any body to which the union is
affiliated for political purposes.
CLAUSE 5 to read: Amongst the regulations as to the conditions of
service in HM’s civil establishments there shall be included regulations
compelling every employee of the concern to be a member of the
appropriate trade union catering for the grade of labour, whether
mental or manual, to which he belongs. Employees in HM’s civil
establishments shall be granted the same rights as workers in private
employment, viz., the right to strike in unison with workers in private
employment, if necessary, to maintain or improve the wages, working
393
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
conditions, or social conditions generally. Unions catering for workers
employed in HM’s civil establishments shall be free to unite or federate
for any industrial or political purpose with unions of workers in private
employment. It shall be lawful for any soldiers, sailors, airmen, or other
ranks of the military, naval and air forces to continue membership of the
trade unions of which they were members in civil life; or to enter such
trade unions as may cater for their occupations; and it shall be lawful for
organisers or other members of political organisations or Trade Unions
to conduct any propaganda, verbal and in writing, amongst soldiers,
sailors, airmen, or other ranks of the forces enumerated, intended or
calculated to procure their entry into Trade Unions.
CLAUSE 6 to read: It shall not be lawful for any local or other public
authority to employ any person for more than a week who is not a
member of or who has not made application to become a member of a
registered trade union.
CLAUSE 7 to read: Without prejudice to the right of any person having a
sufficient interest in the relief sought to sue or apply for an injunction to
restrain any application of the funds of a trade union in contravention of
the provisions of this Act. No person not a member of the union against
whom the injunction is being sought shall have powers to apply for an
injunction.
The following additional amendments have also been sent in by
Comrade Saklatvala:
TO CLAUSE 1: If any employer of labour shall combine with other
employers for the purpose of reducing the wages, lengthening the hours
of labour, worsening the working conditions or lowering the social
status of their employees by lock-out or otherwise, they shall be liable,
individually and collectively, on summary conviction to the confiscation
and nationalisation of their factories, shops or other undertakings
without compensation.
TO CLAUSE 2: An employer or group of employers recruiting, or
attempting to recruit, by propaganda or otherwise, voluntary or paid
labour during an industrial dispute in which he is or they are engaged;
or forming, or attempting to form, or to procure the formation of a trade
union embracing only his or their employers, and precluded by its rules
394
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
from striking, shall be liable to a fine of not less than £10,000 or 5 years
imprisonment with the penalty for a second offence of nationalisation of
their property without compensation.
TO CLAUSE 3: It shall be unlawful for any employer or association of
employers to draw up or cause to be drawn up, or to circulate in any
shape or form, lists or names of workers whom they do not desire to be
employed; or to dismiss from their employment any worker who is a
member of a factory, works, shop, depot, or similar committee, elected
by the employees of such employer or association of employers for the
defence of their economic, political or social interests; the penalty for
contravention of this regulation being a fine of not less than £10,000 or
5 years imprisonment, and nationalisation of their property without
compensation for a second offence.
395
CHAPTER 20
A Cloak on the Tyranny
The Government of India Bill, establishing the Simon
Commission.
In February 1927, while Saklatvala was away in India, the question of sending
a Statutory Commission to India was raised in the House of Commons. Under
the terms of the India Act 1919, there was to be a decennial review, and the
Commons now sought to bring such a review forward.
It was not until June that the proposed composition of the Commission came
up for discussion. Needless to say, although the Commission’s task was to
report on the future development of the administration of India, it was to be
made up exclusively of English men. Small wonder, then, that from the first, it
was rejected by the great majority of politically-minded Indians.
A joint committee was set up in India by the Indian National Congress with
Motilal Nehru as its chairman. While not demanding out and out freedom for
India, this committee demanded that Great Britain should grant dominion
status; this did not please other political groups in the country which
demanded total independence.
During a debate on 2nd June 1927 in the House of Commons, George
Lansbury, in a speech praised by Saklatvala, said:
“I put it to the noble Lord (Earl Winterton) that the time has come when
we should cease treating the Indians as if they were good or bad
children. We should treat them as our equals in this matter of the right
to determine the future of their own country...
“...And I say that the time is long since overdue when we should give
back to that nation the thing which they have not had for generations,
namely, the right to rule themselves.”
Saklatvala took part in the debate on India a few days later:
“I listened not only with interest, but with a great amount of respect and
gratitude to the speech of the hon member for Bow and Bromley (Mr
Lansbury), and yet on certain fundamental points I stand as much apart
396
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
from his views as those of Lord Birkenhead.
“The hon member who has just sat down (Mr Wardlow-Milne) said that
the majority of the people of India held moderate opinions. I do not
know what moderate opinions are when one talks of India. I suppose
that ‘moderate opinion’ is that which agrees with the views of the hon
member for Kidderminster (Mr Wardlow-Milne). I have frequently put
it to this Committee and I do it once again that in the year 1927— never
mind what happened in 1827— it is absolutely impossible for one
country to hold another in subjection and pretend to offer them
measures of reform giving them a partnership in the Commonwealth.
That is all humbug.
“I see that a new Commission is to be appointed and I would like to ask,
what is going to be the scope of that Commission and its terms of
reference? Everybody knows, whether it is put in black and white or not,
that the first thing that will be put in the terms of reference is how this
country can keep a stranglehold over India. That is a primary condition.
“Another condition will be that you must give to the Viceroy full power,
and place a whip in his hand by which the interest, the prestige and the
political power of Britain shall never be allowed to suffer a scratch.
Whether that is put down in print or not, it is the fact. Perhaps hon
members will pardon me for putting things very bluntly, but I think it is
the only way in which I can explain my views.
“Between slavery and freedom there is no middle course, and the
transition from slavery to freedom can never be attained by gradual
measures. As long as you continue slavery, it must continue with the full
strength in the bond; the bond must be strong to hold down the people.
When you make up your minds that there shall be no slavery, then the
bond must break, and it must break completely. There is no human
possibility of gradual reform and gradual freedom.
“The hon member for Kidderminster perverted an historical truth when
he said that the last reforms of 1919 were not given to India by the
government under coercion. The government of Great Britain played
one of the most deceitful games in their history by pretending to give
reforms to India, because the then government of Great Britain was
working under the greatest force and pressure and coercion of American
397
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
and European nations.
“After the war, after the destruction of the power of the Kaiser, Great
Britain stood, to the shame of the world, as worse than ten thousand
Kaisers in her rule in India; and, in order to save the face of Great
Britain, to show that Great Britain was no longer the only imperialist
power in the world, that the British Imperialism after the war was
modifying itself into a group of Commonwealths, under tremendous
coercion, perfidious Albion played the perfidious game by giving what
you call reforms. In the reforms granted to India there is no measure of
freedom...
“Why does Great Britain presume that, of all the savage peoples in the
world who cannot manage their affairs, she must be the controller of
India only? Why do you not take into your charge the people of Persia,
the people of China, the people of Egypt, the people of Turkey, and
everywhere else in the same manner and fashion as you take charge of
the people of India? Did you not believe that the people of Germany had
no instinct of democracy? Why did you not take charge of them? You say
the Italian people have not the same instincts of democracy that the
British people have. Why do you not go and assume parentage over
them?
“It is all nonsense to say that for the benefit of the Indians the British
nation has got to be there, and is performing a benevolent action. For
goodness sake, be honest and say you are a nation of enterprise, and in
seeking for enterprise to seek your own good, opportunity placed you in
a strong position to throttle the country and the people of India— you
are there and you are determined to remain there as long as you can get
any good out of it...
“The hon member for Kidderminster said that there has been
tremendous progress in India since I do not know when— the last twenty
or thirty years.”
Mr Wardlow-Milne: “I am quite willing to make it a hundred years.”
Mr Saklatvala: “Make it as much as you like. I am prepared to grant you
a still further term of 150 years, and I say that a nation which, after 150
years of hypocritical pretence has kept the literacy of the people down to
6%, ought to be pilloried in public in the eyes of the nations of the
398
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
world.
“When a nation that says: ‘I control and give progress to the people of
India,’ fails miserably— or rather, does not fail, but artfully and
deceitfully, in its own interest, prevents 100% of education, and limits it
like a tyrant and oppressor of an unspeakable character to 6%,— how
can any member of that nation come and say, ‘I am proud of my
progress.’?
“Take the death rate in India, the crushing infantile death rate in that
city of Bombay; take the progress of the hon member’s own firm there.
It has been a progress in infantile mortality from 150 to 200 up to 600
and 800 per thousand. There is tremendous progress in the murder of
children all over India, and all over the industrial towns and cities
there...
“The hon member gives us the consolation that there are not so many
deaths from famine... famine is no longer a periodical condition in India
—it is the constant lot of the people. To die from semi-starvation is a
permanent condition in the country; the condition is not one of
periodical famine...
“A government that tolerates a death rate such as exists to day in India
is the most unfit government on the face of the world, and, if nothing
else, the murder of 4V2 millions of Indians who are dying because of the
British rule, over and above the normal death rate which should exist in
a tropical country like India, is alone a sufficient reason to tell the
British to go out, bag and baggage, in spite of all the chimneys that they
are capable of erecting when they are there.”
Saklatvala then went on to speak of the plight of Indian workers in
international and communist terms, relating the condition of the workers in
India and in Great Britain; this was another of his constant and reiterated
themes. He contended that the interests of the managers and owners of
industry in the two countries were in competitive conflict the one with the
other; whereas the workers of both nations should unite for their mutual
benefit and common interest.
“The mill-owners of India and the mill owners of Lancashire would
rather wish to see each other weakened and destroyed. The mill workers
in India and the mill workers of Lancashire will both gain an advantage
399
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
by standing together, fighting together, working for a common standard
of life, demanding the same standard of wages and demanding the same
form of political franchise, liberty and freedom...
“And where this country continually comes into conflict is on this
question, that whenever you talk of reforms, whenever you talk of
progress, whenever you talk of any measure of liberty you in your hearts
believe that by granting a few concessions to your own class-brethren in
India you are building a bridge of some kind. You are doing nothing of
the kind. You are strengthening a class which in its economic interests is
your rival and your competitor...”
He returned to the subject of a Commission to draw up a new constitution for
India:
“...Just as this country would not allow Chinamen or Germans to write a
constitution for this country, it is equally absurd for this country to
appoint a Committee to write a constitution for the people of India, on
whatever basis. The only point of discussion in this Chamber should be
whether this country is still to be a tyrant over India, or whether it will
be courageous enough to say ‘no’ and cease to be a tyrant.”
When the government of India— Statutory Commission Bill came up for the
second reading at the end of November 1927, Saklatvala moved an
amendment. The intention of the bill was to bring forward the decennial
review of the government of India Act 1919 (due in 1929).
“When the noble Lord (Lord Winterton) was introducing the Bill, he
showed a little surprise that I should be prepared to offer opposition to
the Bill as it stands... I think the noble Earl when he made the sweeping
assertion that it is merely shifting the date, that there is no opposition in
this country or in India, misinformed himself as well as the House, in
that there is bitter opposition in responsible Indian circles capable of
expressing themselves against this Bill...
“The Leader of the Opposition is supporting the Bill, I suppose taking it
as a non-contentious Bill... members of this House are under the
impression that a desire was expressed by the Indians themselves for an
earlier appointment of the Commission.
“I think the House is mixing up two things. The Indians greatly desire,
not a Commission that would justify the India Act, but a sort of round
400
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
table conference to clear the air... and not the appointment of a
Statutory Commission under the Act... There are no issues which can be
explored with any usefulness by any such Commission and therefore to
expedite such a Commission is merely enacting a farce earlier.
“The issue is perfectly clear. Is Great Britain determined to carry on an
antiquated, savage system of rule of another country and another
people, or is Great Britain prepared to let the people of every country
manage their own affairs, in a friendly way or even a hostile way if they
choose so to do?... The early appointment of the Commission does not
get rid of the belief that the only purpose of the government is to put a
hypocritical cloak on the system of tyranny which, in the name of
common sense and justice, ought to be abolished as soon as possible.
“I suggest to the government that they should be bold enough to
withdraw the Bill, and that if they are not afraid of the truth they should
appoint, not a Statutory Commission under the Act, but an independent
Commission composed entirely of Indians. Let those Indians come over
to this country and cross examine you and listen to your witnesses and
advise the House as to what is the exact position.
“The Bill precludes all such chances of preliminary negotiations and
hastens the appointment of a Commission which is hated by the
Indians, which is not required by them, which is only serving a
dishonest and hypocritical purpose of Imperialism and is not intended
to advance the freedom of a conquered country which you have no right
to govern. I therefore move the rejection of the Bill.”
Once again, Saklatvala stood almost alone in the House, supported by a mere
handful of the more left-wing Labour members, since the Labour Party
officially supported the Bill. His amendment was seconded by the Labour
member for Glasgow, Gorbals, Mr Buchanan.
In the course of a further debate, during the Committee Stage of the Statutory
Commission Bill, with Mr James Hope in the Chair, Saklatvala moved an
amendment:
“to insert the words, ‘provided that the said Commission shall not be
appointed until a Resolution shall have been agreed to by the Legislative
Assembly of India approving of its appointment.’
“...Apart from the wording of the Act, (India Act 1919) I submit that
401
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
after its passage, though not perhaps during its passage, it had become a
contract between two parties, between the government of this country
and the body entrusted with whatever measure of popular government
was granted to India.
“Today we are asked to take a course of action by which one of the
contracting parties wants to alter the contract radically, completely
disregarding the existence of the other contracting party. That other
contracting party, having heard of our one-sided activity through other
channels such as the press, is objecting as strongly as possible and in
whatever manner it can against this proposal. I have just this morning
received a cablegram from the Trade Union Congress of India— ”
The Under-Secretary of State for India (Earl Winterton): “I wish to raise
a point of order. I ask you, respectfully, Sir, whether it is not quite out of
order on any part of this Bill, much less on this amendment, to discuss
the composition or proposed composition of the Commission... As I
understand the hon member, he is now dealing with objections which
are being taken in India to the proposed Commission.”
Mr Saklatvala: “...I assure the noble Lord, I am not bothered about the
personnel of the Commission. If the Commission is wrong, any saint or
scoundrel appointed to it will be in the wrong place.”
In reply to Saklatvala, Earl Winterton launched into a vituperative attack upon
him, thereby incurring great indignation among many fellow members. In the
course of a bitter tirade he demanded:
“What right has the hon gentleman to come down here and make a most
serious charge against every Party in the House of breaking faith with
the people of India by breaking the spirit and the letter of the Act of
1919?... I must say quite frankly again, that no one who has the remotest
knowledge of India could possible accept the hon gentleman as an
exponent of Indian opinion... he is repudiated by every responsible
organisation in India. There is not a responsible organisation in India
that accepts the hon gentleman as its spokesman...
“May I point out to the hon gentleman the fact, although he ought to
have known it before speaking with such confidence, that there have
been no less than five resolutions passed in the Assembly in India in
favour of the acceleration of the date?... Yet here is an hon gentleman
402
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
who comes down here and claims, forsooth, to be an exponent of India
opinion, telling us that these five resolutions have got to be entirely
disregarded, that he, the member for North Battersea, the
representative of 300,000,000 Indian people, demands that this
Committee shall retard the date ...”
Mr Buchanan, member for Glasgow, Gorbals, interrupted the aristocratic
oration with the question, “Will the noble Lord kindly inform me of the dates
of these five resolutions, or, say, the date of the last one?”
To which the noble Lord somewhat lamely replied, “I could not give the hon
member the date off-hand, but resolutions have been passed at different times
ever since the Assembly came into being in 1920.”
(In spite of repeated demands from many members during the period of over
an hour, Winterton failed to produce any evidence of the five resolutions,
being able to quote a date for only one, and that had been in 1921!)
Lieut. Commander Kenworthy (Labour) then intervened:
“The noble Lord must be very grateful to me, because but for my
boldness in protesting against his attempt to rush the Committee stage
yesterday, he would not have been able to treat the House this afternoon
to this flow of invective against the hon member for North Battersea (Mr
Saklatvala)...
“The noble Lord said that the hon member for North Battersea had no
right to speak for any section of Indian opinion. I do not know that it
behoves me particularly to defend the hon member for North Battersea;
I think he can look after himself. But the noble Lord seemed to question
the right of any member of this House to give certain opinions. The hon
member for North Battersea was sent here by the electorate in his
constituency, and has every right to voice his opinion in this House. I
am sure the hon member treats the electors of North Battersea to a great
many tirades on the Indian question, and that they well know his views.
The noble Lord, beside being a great ornament to this House, is an Irish
Peer. What section of Irish opinion does he represent?”
The Chairman: “The hon and gallant member’s question opens up an
alarming vista.”
Lieut. Commander Kenworthy: “...I was only protesting against the
403
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
noble Lord’s suggestion that the hon member on this side speaks for no
section of Indian opinion, and when an Irish Peer, who has estates in
England, and sits for a Sussex constituency, says that, I make the
obvious retort, but I will not repeat it. I really think the under-secretary
need not get heated over this matter at all.
“I, personally, am very glad to hear the views of the hon member for
North Battersea on Indian affairs. He is the only Indian born native in
the House as far as I know. The noble Lord can console himself that he
is going to get the Committee stage of this Bill. He has no need to worry
about that. What he has got to worry about is Indian opinion in India,
and if he would address himself to that, and not allow his leg to be
pulled by the hon member for North Battersea, it would be better.”
Then came a very apt comment by Mr Stephen in support of Saklatvala:
“I wish to join in protesting against the tone of the Under-Secretary of
State for India in his references to the hon member for North Battersea.
He said the hon member does not represent any responsible Indian
opinion. It is perhaps true or it is perhaps incorrect, but the point that
struck me in this connection was that it came very badly from the noble
Lord to make such a statement, seeing that the government of which he
is a junior member was responsible for keeping the hon member for
North Battersea from visiting his own country to get into touch with
Indian opinion. I think that the noble Lord would have been well
advised if he had kept his temper when he was replying to the speech of
the hon member for North Battersea.”
Mr Wallhead (Labour) then followed in defence of Saklatvala. In the course of
his speech he said:
“It would have been as well if, before the noble Lord thought out his
scheme of indictment against the hon member for North Battersea, he
had been quite sure of his facts... he charged the hon member with not
being representative of Indian opinion and said that he represented no
one at all.
“I believe that on a recent visit to India the hon member was presented
with nine open Addresses by nine of the great cities of India, some of
which have refused the same privilege and honour to Lord Irwin, the
Viceroy. If what I say is correct, as I am sure it is— and I believe the hon
404
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
member has these Addresses in his possession now— I think at least the
noble Lord might have known those facts... I think the noble Lord
should withdraw his statement and apologise to the hon member for
North Battersea for the statement he has made.”
Nor did the attacks against the noble Lord rest there. Jimmy Maxton then took
the floor. He said:
“...Listening to the noble Lord today and the subsequent discussion
gives the impression that the government seems absolutely determined
in the handling of this question to proceed from folly to folly; and as one
who is genuinely anxious that the great Indian people shall be
established in a position of liberty and dignity to develop their nation
according to their own genius, I regret very much that first the noble
Lord the Secretary of State, in the other place [the House of Lords], and
then the noble Lord the Under- Secretary of State in this House, should
indicate to the Indian people that they had nothing but contempt for
them.
“What possible measure of confidence can we have that the government
will deal with the Indian people in a decent, gentlemanly, man-to-man
fashion, when they cannot treat with ordinary common courtesy the one
representative of the Indian people who sits in this House? I think it
should have been possible for a responsible Minister of the Crown... to
have put through this Bill, to have listened to any criticism to it with
restraint and dignity, having regard to the fact that there were greater
issues at stake than his amour propre...”
Mr Becket than took up the cudgels on Saklatvala’s behalf:
“I am rather surprised that the Under- Secretary of State resented this
amendment quite so strongly. I only felt, when reading it, amazement
that the hon member for North Battersea (Mr Saklatvala) should have
come forward with such an extremely mild amendment. It seems to me
such a very reasonable request to make that I cannot understand why
any hon member on the other side of the House should hesitate for a
moment to support it. It certainly does not justify the very un-English
practice of standing up supported by big battalions and taunting a man
in the way that has been done, just because he happens to be in a
minority of one.
405
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
“I do not suppose any member will find more points of disagreement
with the hon member for North Battersea than myself, but he is
certainly entitled to express his opinions without being treated
insolently, and in this particular case I think that he has moved an
amendment which has nothing to do with any particular Party
prejudice, but it is an extremely moderate and very helpful
amendment.”
It will be understood from the above lively exchanges that Saklatvala did not
want for champions in the House of Commons, despite his political isolation
in that body. Through his years of sincere service he had earned and acquired
the respect and friendship of many members whose political views were
divergent from his own. But, as Lieut. Commander Kenworthy had said,
Saklatvala was well able to take care of himself (though I have no doubt he
must have been deeply grateful for the support he received). Nevertheless,
Saklatvala himself launched an offensive against the noble Lord:
“I apologise to the House for intervening in this debate a second time,
but I think the extraordinary characte 
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11